Updates, reboots and certificates

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the description correctly avoids repeating that. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the reboot criterion (installed kernel newer than running one) and, importantly, the data-freshness caveat that results reflect apt's last daily refresh — critical for interpreting staleness. It does not, however, state what the certificate expiry window or package set boundaries actually enumerate in output.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the reboot heuristic, then scope/freshness caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained. The description covers what is checked, the reboot logic, package coverage, and the staleness limitation — everything needed to interpret results correctly for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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% and the single optional 'node' parameter is already documented as 'Only this node. Default: all.' The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 three concrete resources (pending updates, needed reboots, expiring certificates) scoped to Proxmox nodes. None of the siblings (list_nodes, storage_health, ceph_health, backup_audit) overlap with this maintenance-oriented check, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 usage situation is implied — check this for update/reboot/certificate posture — and the node parameter default of 'all' is noted. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-use guidance and no pointer to a sibling for related concerns, so the agent must infer scope.

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