pmg_apt_update_refresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a mutation with low risk, no package state change, idempotent, and dry-run by default. It details the return structure for both dry-run (PLAN) and execution (JSON with status and task id). It also mentions required configuration (PROXIMO_PMG_*), which is critical for agent usage.

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 well-structured, starting with the action and risk level, then key behavioral traits, and ending with return values and config requirements. It is dense but not verbose; each sentence adds useful information. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's effective.

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 schema is complete and an output schema exists, the description covers the main usage: purpose, risk, return structure, idempotency, and config requirement. It could mention error cases or rate limits, but for a safe, idempotent index refresh, the level of detail is appropriate.

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 schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role (dry-run vs execute) and notes that the tool returns a PLAN by default. It does not significantly elaborate on other parameters, but the baseline of 3 is raised by this extra context.

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 resynchronizes the APT package index on a PMG node, equating it to 'apt-get update'. It explicitly differentiates from package upgrades, stating that the API does not expose upgrade execution. The verb 'resynchronize' and resource 'APT package index' are specific and distinct from siblings like pve_apt_update_refresh.

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 context for when to use the tool: for refreshing the local package index only, not for upgrading packages. It notes idempotency and safe re-running, and mentions the dry-run default. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other products (e.g., pve_apt_update_refresh) or situations where this tool should not be used, though the PMG prefix implies the target system.

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