sassy_update_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: lookup limited to five newest releases, drafts excluded, older tags return not-found, tag defaults to latest, and nothing downloads or installs anything. None of this contradicts 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 front-loaded with the read-only nature and core purpose, then methodically covers output shape, parameter behavior, constraints, network requirement, and related tools. Every sentence adds either selection guidance or call-critical detail; nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and field list. It also covers the optional parameter, default behavior, lookup limits, draft exclusion, network dependency, and sibling tool routing. For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 the burden for the sole 'tag' parameter. It compensates well: 'Optional tag; defaults to the latest release,' plus the behavioral constraint that older tags return a not-found error and drafts are excluded. This gives an agent enough to invoke the parameter correctly.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('downloadable assets for one release'), and enumerates the exact returned fields (tag, version, asset_count, per-asset metadata). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming sassy_update_apply, sassy_update_changelog, and sassy_update_check in context.

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 sequencing guidance: 'Use after sassy_update_check to pick the right asset_name for sassy_update_apply; use sassy_update_changelog for the release notes.' It also states a prerequisite (network access to the GitHub releases endpoint) and a hard constraint (only five newest published releases).

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