list_updates

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 one genuinely useful behavioral note: it does not trigger an installer download. It says nothing about scope, freshness, or whether the URLs are fetched remotely.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the 'without downloading an installer' qualifier lands early. It is efficient, though the phrasing 'patch source' is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 zero params, full annotation coverage and an output schema, most structured context is already provided. What remains missing is how this relates to 'check_update' and what 'patch source' refers to, which is exactly the gap the description should close and does not.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level detail is needed here.

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 states an action (read full-installer URLs and patch source) but never plainly says what the tool lists or returns, so the name 'list_updates' does much of the work. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling 'check_update', leaving an agent unsure which one surfaces update information.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The phrase 'without downloading an installer' implies a non-destructive lookup scenario, but the agent must infer that versus 'check_update' or 'download_model'.

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