Pending Security Updates

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds non-redundant behavioral detail: 'Naming each package costs one API request' and max_packages_per_host caps per-host resolution. It also resolves ambiguity by stating 'the update count itself is always exact,' which is useful for interpreting partial results.

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 carry the full message: the first states purpose, the second explains the tool's unique trade-off. There is no repeated schema information or filler, and the most distinctive comparison is front-loaded.

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 low parameter count, no required parameters, an existing output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers the relevant behavior and caveats for correct invocation. It clarifies the one non-obvious cap and cost behavior, so nothing critical is left to guesswork.

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 only describes limit, not max_packages_per_host. The description explains max_packages_per_host's purpose, linking it to API cost and per-host cap, which compensates for the parameter lacking a schema description. limit is already documented in the schema, so no further description is 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 opens with 'Hosts with pending security updates, with the package names and versions for each,' clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly contrasts itself with list_pending_updates, so an agent can distinguish the tool without opening the schema.

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 names list_pending_updates as the sibling and says this tool is 'Shorter' and 'usually the relevant one,' giving clear selection guidance. It does not explicitly state the condition under which list_pending_updates should be chosen instead, but the context is strong enough for typical decisions.

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