Run auto-updater

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly (false) and non-destructive (false). The description adds that it will 'check and update all containers', confirming state modification. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, like whether running containers are restarted or if the operation is safe to run concurrently.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without extraneous details.

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 tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it does but not what the result looks like (e.g., success/failure, list of updated containers). For a simple tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, leaving parameter semantics at baseline 3 per guidelines.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run the auto-updater to check and update all containers with available image updates'. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('auto-updater'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'arcane_updater_update_container' (for single containers) and 'arcane_image_check_updates_all' (only checks).

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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid it, or compare to sibling tools. Given the large sibling list, more context would be beneficial.

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