update_grype

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions installing/updating the binary but lacks details on system impact, required permissions, version checking, or side effects like overwriting existing binaries. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies the system.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no parameters, the description covers the basic action but omits behavioral context like success/failure behavior, system impact, or prerequisites. An output schema exists but its contents are unknown; still, overall completeness is adequate but not fully informative.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately explains the action without needing param 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 clearly states the verb 'install or update', the resource 'grype binary', and the scope 'to the latest version', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_image or update_db.

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 implies usage for getting the latest grype via the official installer, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_db (which updates the database) or find_grype (which locates the binary). No when-not guidance provided.

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