Update bot attempts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the data is a digest refreshed every 3 hours, and single-package queries additionally surface queue position and next retry estimate. It does not address auth, rate limits, or how the many filters combine.

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?

It is a single compact sentence, front-loaded with the data source, with no filler. The semicolon-clause structure is dense and slightly run-on, and the absence of a leading verb makes the action itself less immediately scannable, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what a result carries (outcome, versions, PR, failure reason with log excerpt, plus queue/retry for a single package) and notes the 3-hourly refresh. Combined with complete schema coverage for all six filters and read-only annotations, this is nearly everything an agent needs, though it never explains default behavior or how filters interact.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning for the `package` parameter by explaining that querying one attribute also yields the bot's queue placement and expected retry time, which the schema's 'One attribute, as the bot names it' does not convey. The other five parameters (limit, since, reason, outcome, search) are left entirely to the schema.

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 identifies the specific resource (nixpkgs-update / r-ryantm's latest attempt per package, the 3-hourly digest) and what it contains, so an agent can infer this tool queries the update bot's attempt records. It lacks an explicit verb (it reads as a data dictionary entry rather than 'Get...') and never contrasts itself with siblings like build_failures or pull_requests, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this tool over siblings such as build_failures or needs_attention, and no mention of prerequisites. The only hint of a usage mode is the incidental note that queries for one package also return queue position, which is not framed as guidance.

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