Pending Updates

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious cost behavior: naming each package costs one API request, capped by max_packages_per_host, while the update count is always exact. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences cover the tool's output, default behavior, a key parameter, and a cost caveat. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and a description that explains all parameters and behavioral trade-offs, nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

The schema documents limit and security_only, but not max_packages_per_host; the description compensates by explaining exactly what max_packages_per_host caps and the cost implication. It also clarifies security_only's semantics beyond the schema description, adding real value.

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 that the tool returns hosts with pending updates along with package names and versions, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like find_hosts or find_downtimes. Even though the verb is implied by the tool name, the resource and result shape are unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on the default behavior (all updates) and how to narrow to security-relevant updates via security_only, which helps the agent decide how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scoping and default behavior provide sufficient usage context.

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