check_database_freshness

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read-only operation. Description adds that it warns on staleness, which goes beyond annotations. The inconsistent threshold (24h vs 7d) is a minor flaw, but overall behavioral context is adequate.

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?

Description is short and to the point, with a separate 'When to use' line. The inconsistency in staleness thresholds is a minor distraction, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Missing output schema means return format is unspecified (only 'warns' is mentioned). The inconsistent threshold (24h vs 7d) creates uncertainty. While the tool's purpose is clear, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage; description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 checks when package databases were last synchronized and warns if stale. It specifies it only works on Arch Linux, distinguishing it from generic tools. However, internal inconsistency between '>24 hours' and '>7 days' reduces clarity slightly.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'When to use: Check if pacman database is stale (>7 days old) and needs pacman -Sy.' It also marks the tool as maintenance-related and restricts to Arch Linux. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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