check_app_updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tools it uses (Homebrew, mas, system updates), the platform restriction, and the output format (lists with current vs available versions). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences pack all essential information: platform, sources, dependencies, and return detail. Front-loaded with the most important scoping ('macOS only') and purpose. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers platform, dependencies, sources, and output structure. It is enough for an agent to know exactly when to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description mentions the output format (lists of outdated apps with versions), which is useful even without parameters. No parameter details are needed.

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The description states a specific verb ('checks for outdated applications') and clearly enumerates the resources covered (Homebrew formulae+casks, Mac App Store via mas, macoS system updates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage or get_system_alerts by focusing on application update status.

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?

It provides clear platform context ('macOS only') and notes the mas CLI dependency for Mac App Store checks. While not explicitly naming alternative tools, the scope is distinct enough from siblings that usage context is clear. No exclusions are given, but none are needed for a read-only check tool.

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