whodb_platform_package_installation_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the workspace argument targets only this call 'without changing defaults,' distinguishing it from session-wide defaults. It does not describe what the check returns, but the annotations carry most of the burden.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose before the targeting detail, with no filler. Every sentence 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?

The tool is a simple read-only check with fully documented parameters, and targeting behavior is explained. However, with no output schema present, the description does not clarify what the check returns or its form, leaving a modest gap in an otherwise adequate definition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, fields, search, and the workspace object. The description only restates the workspace {host, org, project} shape, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a package installation has an update.' This clarifies the operation despite the ambiguous 'update' in the tool name, which could otherwise read as a mutation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like whodb_platform_package_installations or whodb_platform_package_library, keeping it short of a 5.

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 never says when to use this check versus the many adjacent package/installation siblings, nor any preconditions. The second sentence covers workspace targeting mechanics, not when-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied.

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