update_updater_check

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the 'download' argument can trigger starting downloads of found updates, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. It does not elaborate on side effects or prerequisites, but annotations already cover idempotency and destructiveness, and the added context is valuable.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. 'Checking for updates' immediately states the purpose, the endpoint is included, and the one parameter is explained without unnecessary 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it lacks guidance on when to call it versus sibling update tools and leaves the download parameter's value semantics underspecified. These are clear gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides a semantic explanation for the single 'download' parameter: 'Indicate that you want to start download any updates found.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify accepted string values or how null/false behaves, leaving ambiguity.

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 operation is 'Checking for updates' and identifies the specific endpoint PUT /updater/check. This is a clear verb+resource pairing, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_updater_apply or list_updater_status.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative update-related tools. Sibling tools include update_updater_apply, list_updater_status, and list_system_updates, but the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios to help an agent choose correctly.

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