list_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific HTTP endpoint (GET /api/v3/update), which is a useful behavioral detail for invocation. However, it does not describe what the tool returns, any potential side effects beyond the read operation, or any other behavioral nuances.

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 short (two lines), but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks the substance needed for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. While there is no fluff, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, so it does not earn a high score for structure.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is incomplete because it fails to clarify what 'Update' refers to. This ambiguity leaves the agent unable to determine the tool's domain or how it fits with other tools. The endpoint is provided, but without context, it is not sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters since the input schema is empty and there is nothing to add. The schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 'Read Update' is minimal and ambiguous. It states it is a read operation but does not clarify what 'Update' refers to (software updates? resource updates?). It does not name a specific resource or domain, and it does not distinguish itself from the many other list_* sibling tools, such as list_alttitle or list_system_status, which also read resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It simply gives the HTTP endpoint without any context about the purpose, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusions.

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