pbs_apt_updates_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It declares READ-ONLY, mentions the API endpoint and shape verification ('smoke-confirm'), and explains that upgrade execution is not exposed. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's behavior and boundaries.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the READ-ONLY label and key action. It includes important operational notes (smoke-confirm, upgrade scope, refresh prerequisite, config). Could be slightly tighter but remains clear and relevant.

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 existence of an output schema, the description's mention of expected keys is helpful but redundant. It covers prerequisites, authentication hint (config), and behavioral boundaries. It is complete enough for a read-only list tool with good schema support.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. It does not elaborate on parameter values beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 lists available package updates on a PBS node, specifying resource ('package updates'), action ('list'), and scoping ('cached apt index'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pbs_apt_update_refresh by directing that refresh must be called first.

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 clear context: list updates after refresh, upgrade not exposed, needs config. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but effectively guides the agent by referencing pbs_apt_update_refresh and noting limitations.

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