check_all_systems_for_updates

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the system_limit is capped at 200 for paging, and the return structure includes items and meta. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but the information given is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose and then add usage and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the output schema exists (though not shown) and the description mentions the return format, the key behaviors are covered. The five optional parameters have defaults, and the sibling tools are diverse, but the description sufficiently orients the agent for basic invocation. Minor gaps in parameter semantics prevent a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all five parameters and gives partial semantics: include_updates adds per-system items, system_limit is capped. However, it does not explain include_cves, system_offset, or updates_per_system in detail, leaving some meaning implicit.

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 clearly states the tool checks all active systems for pending updates, using the verb 'check' and resource 'all active systems'. It further clarifies it's best for fleet scan, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target individual systems or summaries.

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 context on when to use the tool ('best for fleet scan') and how to configure it ('set include_updates=true'), but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools. This gives clear usage guidance without exhaustive exclusions.

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