sassy_update_check

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it is read-only, caches results for 5 minutes, force=true bypasses the cache, it returns an error if GitHub is unreachable instead of guessing, and it requires network access. The annotations align with the description, and the description enriches the safety profile with concrete runtime behavior.

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 dense but well-organized: it leads with the read-only guarantee, then explains purpose, output, caching behavior, error behavior, parameter scope, and sibling tool routing. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what the response contains (JSON with upgradable boolean and one-line summary). It covers input, side effects, caching, network requirements, failure mode, and how the tool fits into the broader update workflow. An agent can invoke it correctly with no missing context.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains that force=true bypasses the cache and hits the network again, and it states that no other parameters exist. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific action: fetch remote release state from GitHub and report current versus latest version. It also explicitly positions itself as the 'apt-update equivalent' and distinguishes its role from sibling tools like sassy_update_changelog, sassy_update_list, and sassy_update_apply.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this as the first update step to learn whether an upgrade exists, then use the named siblings for changelog, assets, and applying the update. This clearly routes the agent to the correct tool and its alternatives.

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