opnsense_get_firmware_status

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: OPNsense caches update checks, potentially causing stale results, and that the firmware/check endpoint can force a refresh. It also reiterates safety by stating 'This tool never installs anything.' The readOnlyHint/idempotentHint are already present, but the cache caveat adds meaningful context.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a focused caveat about caching, then Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, annotations cover safety, and the description includes a detailed return schema and usage examples. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including handling stale results and choosing the output format.

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 only parameter (response_format) is mentioned in the Args section but only lists the two options ('markdown' or 'json') without explaining their trade-offs. The input schema's property description actually provides more useful guidance ('json returns every field... better when chaining values'). Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated but did 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Check for pending OPNsense updates and report the installed version and repository state.' It also explicitly distinguishes from a sibling tool by noting 'Don't use when: You want uptime or load (use opnsense_get_system_status)'.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, names an alternative tool (opnsense_get_system_status), and explains when to use opnsense_api_request to force a refresh when results are stale. Also clarifies that the tool never installs anything.

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