check_updates_dry_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: platform restriction (SUSE Linux), emphasis on no changes being applied, and note that it shows pending updates with sizes. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 with a lifecycle prefix, immediately states the purpose, then adds platform and usage notes. No wasted words and well front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what it does, platform constraints, use case, and output expectation (pending updates and sizes). It is fully adequate given the simplicity and available annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description doesn't need to discuss them.

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 tool checks for available system updates without applying them, specifies it only works on SUSE Linux, and mentions it shows pending updates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_obs_package or remove_packages.

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 an explicit 'When to use' scenario: before running system updates, to check what packages will be upgraded and their sizes. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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