opkg_upgradable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action 'List' (implying read-only) but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, whether it requires prior opkg_update, or any network/state dependencies. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the core function without any filler, earning a maximum score for conciseness.

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 description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks contextual detail such as the output format (package names vs. versions) or the prerequisite of running opkg update first. With no output schema or annotations to supplement, this gap prevents a higher score.

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 is empty (100% coverage). The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no reason to adjust.

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 a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'packages that have upgrades available'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opkg_list (list all packages) and opkg_info (package details), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is used to check for available upgrades, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives like opkg_update or opkg_list. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the usage context only implied.

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