get_update_command

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

Goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) by detailing the internal logic (heuristic combining process.argv/process.execPath with cached registry state), clarifying no network calls are made, listing all return fields, and stating it never throws. The description fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 fairly long but well-structured: purpose, mechanism, return fields, agent behavior, and caveats. Every sentence adds value, and the 'READ-ONLY' tag front-loads key information. Minor room for tightening, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains each return field (current, latest, updateAvailable, etc.), covers agent behavior, edge cases (unknown install path), and the tool's internal mechanism. It provides complete context for correct usage without relying on external documentation.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info but compensates by thoroughly explaining the return fields and the tool's internal state, which is more relevant given the lack of input parameters.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('return the recommended upgrade flow for the running install path'), explicitly distinguishing the tool from siblings by emphasizing its read-only, introspection nature. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for usage: when the user asks to upgrade, when an update notice appears, or when the user asks for update instructions. Also instructs not to execute the command autonomously and to handle unknown install paths by asking the user, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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