get_updates

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the phrase 'available Radarr updates' scopes what is returned while naming version, release date, and changelog as outputs. It does not discuss pagination or failure modes, but this is sufficient for a zero-parameter listing.

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?

A single, tight sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs in the key output fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing, the description is complete. It provides the return-value detail because no output schema exists, and 'List' conveys the operation's safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter details to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parametric meaning needs to be supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('available Radarr updates'), and enumerates the returned fields (version, release date, changelog). No sibling tool targets updates, so it is immediately distinguishable from the other list-style tools.

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 intended context is clear: call this tool when you need the catalog of available Radarr updates. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling provides this functionality, so there is no real ambiguity.

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