system_packages_update_test

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Dry-run' clearly indicates that the operation is non-mutating, and 'Empty = all pending' explains the scope behavior. It doesn't mention return format or edge cases, but the output schema covers return values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one effective line plus a focused parameter note. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, one-parameter dry-run tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the operation and the parameter behavior, but it could be stronger with an explicit pointer to system_packages_update_run for the actual upgrade.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so meaningfully: 'Optional package name list. Empty = all pending' clarifies both the semantic type and the default behavior for an empty list. It is slightly ambiguous about whether null is treated the same as empty.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Dry-run OS package upgrade.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and, via the term 'dry-run,' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling system_packages_update_run. However, it doesn't explicitly name that sibling or spell out that no changes are applied.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Dry-run' wording implies this is for previewing upgrades without applying them, which provides some usage context. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over system_packages_update_run or system_packages_updates, and no exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.