opkg_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and the source (configured repositories), which implies a network operation and local state change. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network dependency, time requirements, or failure modes, leaving room for more transparency.

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 a single, targeted sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse and quickly understand.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for basic invocation. It explains the action and source, which is sufficient for an agent to know what happens. However, it could benefit from a note about prerequisites (e.g., network connectivity) or the expected effect on the system, making it slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained context.

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 the schema confirms this (coverage is vacuously 100%). With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it also does not compensate for any missing schema info, which is unnecessary here.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly states the resource: 'opkg package lists from configured repositories.' It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings like opkg_install, opkg_remove, and opkg_list by focusing on refreshing the package index rather than managing 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 only states what the tool does, providing implicit usage context (e.g., run before installing to refresh available versions). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it relative to siblings or provide alternatives, so the guidance is minimal but not completely absent.

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