Check Updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it surfaces both pending updates and current settings, but says nothing about whether the call performs an active check against the vendor, how fresh the result is, or what the response structure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the primary result first and the secondary settings detail in parentheses. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers both what is checked and the shape of the settings returned. Only minor gaps remain (no hint about update-availability fields or whether a re-check is triggered), which is acceptable at this complexity.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could or does add.

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 ('check') and resource ('Homey system updates and current update settings'), and even names the settings sub-fields (channel, auto-update). It is clearly distinct from siblings like reboot_homey or get_system_info, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call it when the user asks about update status or update configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisite (e.g. auth/owner permission), and no named alternative such as get_system_info for general version data.

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