update_kali_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify critical details like whether this requires elevated privileges, if it's destructive (e.g., could break existing configurations), what the typical runtime is, or what happens on failure. For a system update tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity of a system update operation (potentially destructive, requiring privileges) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., apt-get upgrade vs. dist-upgrade), what gets returned (success/failure status, logs), or error handling. This leaves too many unknowns for safe agent 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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 'Update Kali Linux system packages' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Kali Linux system packages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'install_kali_package' (which installs specific packages) by focusing on system-wide updates. However, it doesn't specify if this updates all packages or just security patches, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing root access), timing considerations (e.g., during maintenance windows), or when to choose this over running individual package updates. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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