ssh_check_updates

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('check'), but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies system state, what the output contains, or any required permissions. With no annotations, this gap is significant.

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 extremely concise (two lines), but it lacks structure and omits important details. While brevity is valued, the extreme under-specification reduces clarity.

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?

The description does not explain what the output contains (though an output schema exists, it is not described in the text) or how to interpret 'available updates.' For a simple check tool, the description leaves the agent with incomplete context.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by noting that 'session_name' refers to the SSH session to use. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the tool relies on this brief mention. The parameter is optional with a default, but no additional details are provided.

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 'Check for available package updates' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like ssh_list_packages or ssh_install_package, which could also involve package updates.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., ssh_list_packages to list installed packages or ssh_install_package to install updates). It also lacks any prerequisites or context for usage.

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