Pending Updates

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful operational behavior: 'Naming each package costs one API request, capped by max_packages_per_host' and that the result is 'correspondingly larger'. This gives cost/size awareness beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies scope and cost implications. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 small parameter count, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers scope, differentiation from the security-only variant, and an important behavioral cost cap. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, with max_packages_per_host lacking a description. The description compensates by explaining that max_packages_per_host caps per-host package naming and associated API request cost. The limit parameter is well described in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed there.

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 identifies the resource ('Hosts with any pending updates') and the included details ('package names and versions'). It also explicitly contrasts with the security-only sibling by stating 'security or not' and 'Covers all updates, not only security ones', which distinguishes it from list_pending_security_updates.

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 makes the scope explicit: this tool returns all pending updates, not just security ones, and is 'correspondingly larger'. This effectively tells an agent to choose this tool when full update coverage is needed and implies the security-only sibling as the alternative, though it does not name it directly.

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