pending_updates

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the return structure: 'totals, a per-machine upgrade count, and a sample of packages.' No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main action and returns. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, return structure, and relation to other tools. It is complete for this type of tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning: 'on matched machines' relates to the query parameter, and 'a sample of packages' relates to the sample parameter. However, it lacks explicit details on the query syntax or the exact interpretation of the sample count.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'packages with pending upgrades', and the scope 'on matched machines'. It also mentions what is returned (totals, per-machine count, sample) and distinguishes from siblings by naming related tools like apply_security_upgrades.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Preview this before apply_security_upgrades / upgrade_packages.' This provides clear context for use and suggests it as a prerequisite step, differentiating it from sibling tools.

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