apt_list_upgradable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating the tool does not execute an upgrade and by describing the return content as package name, current -> new version. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement with the non-destructive guarantee front-loaded, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the core behavior, return format, and non-mutating nature, while annotations cover safety and the schema covers host and response_format details. It falls slightly short of a 5 because it does not explicitly connect to sibling apt_update/apt_upgrade tools or mention how the local vs. remote host distinction might affect invocation.

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 only lists parameter names (host, response_format) without explaining their meaning or usage. The input schema does contain descriptions for host and response_format, but the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the description does not compensate for that gap and adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 says 'Lista arrol, mely csomagok frissithetok most' (lists which packages are upgradable now), which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also explicitly states 'nem futtat frissitest' (does not run the upgrade), which distinguishes it from the sibling apt_upgrade, though it does not name that sibling or other alternatives.

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 phrase 'nem futtat frissitest' gives clear context that this is a check-only operation, implying the user should use it to preview upgrades before running apt_upgrade. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over apt_update, apt_search, or apt_show, nor does it list exclusions or alternative tool names.

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