update_maester_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that it updates files (implying a mutation) and reports a version, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting local changes), required permissions, network access, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotations.

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, focused sentence that states the action and the result. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 covers the main operation and the reported output, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it does not fully detail side effects, prerequisites, or what 'latest versions' entails. This is a minimal viable description but leaves gaps for a tool that performs a file-modifying update.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none to explain.

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 ('Update') with a clear resource ('the Maester module and test files') and states the output ('report the resulting module version'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_maester_tests, which runs tests, and audit_ai_agents, which audits agents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. The only implied usage is that you need to update the Maester module, but there is no explicit context or comparison with siblings.

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