apt_update

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

Annotations already convey non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the useful detail that nothing is installed or upgraded and that the command output is returned, but it does not mention side effects like writing local package lists or needing network/root permissions.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds information about scope or return value (e.g., 'Nem telepit es nem frissit semmit'). No filler.

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 command-style tool, the description covers the operation, non-effects, and return type. It does not discuss when to choose an alternative APT tool, and it relies on the schema for parameter details, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 the parameter names ('host, response_format') and does not explain their meaning or defaults. With reported schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for the schema gap, but it does not.

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 names a specific operation (package list refresh) and anchors it to 'apt-get update', then explicitly distinguishes it from installing or upgrading packages. This separates it from sibling tools like apt_upgrade and apt_install without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It clearly states the scope ('apt-get update', no install/upgrade), which tells the agent when not to use it. It does not explicitly point to alternative sibling tools (e.g., apt_upgrade for actual upgrades), but the negative scope is strong enough to prevent confusion.

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