z2m_check_updates

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

Discloses real network traffic, per-device time cost, and default behavior (checks all mains-powered routers when no arguments). This goes beyond the annotations by adding practical side-effect context, without contradicting readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Four sentences, each with clear purpose: main action, side effect caveat, default behavior, and usage/alternative guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description fully covers when to use, what happens, and what to do next. No output schema is needed for this simple action, and annotations cover safety. The combination of description, schema, and annotations gives the agent everything required for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with parameter descriptions already explaining the device field and timeout. The description's note about omitting arguments checks all mains-powered devices adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Actively query devices for available OTA firmware updates,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with the passive z2m_health_report and by mentioning follow-up with z2m_ota_update.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Prefer z2m_health_report for a passive answer' and 'use this only when you need a fresh check.' It also tells the agent to follow with z2m_ota_update to actually flash, giving clear alternatives and when-to-use context.

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