opnsense_firmware_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action is non-blocking (background) and requires a brief wait, adding key context beyond the simple input schema. It does not cover rate limits or side effects, but the transparency is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states the purpose, second provides actionable usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded, and highly efficient.

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 fully covers the tool's behavior and usage for its simplicity: no parameters, no output schema, and the action is clear. It tells the agent exactly what to do and what to expect, leaving no critical gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information because there are none; no value is needed beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool triggers a background firmware repository check to refresh cached upgrade status, with a specific verb ('trigger') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like opnsense_firmware_status or opnsense_firmware_info by focusing on the refresh action.

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 explicitly instructs to wait briefly and then call 'opnsense_firmware_status' for fresh info, providing clear context for use. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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