available_updates

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output scope ('name/versions only', {count, packages}) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires elevated privileges, or triggers a package index refresh. The read-only nature is strongly implied but not explicitly stated.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, the data scope, and the output structure. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. This is an model of conciseness.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete. It specifies what is returned (name/versions only), the top-level keys ({count, packages}), and the domain (APT). There are no hidden inputs to explain and no sibling ambiguity left unresolved.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly avoids inventing non-existent parameters and clearly states what the output contains. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds meaningful output context without parameter noise.

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 identifies the tool as reporting APT packages with pending upgrades, restricted to name/versions only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_updates, which performs the actual upgrades. The scope and output are immediately understandable.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_updates or system status tools. While the name implies checking for updates, there is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is only implied, not articulated.

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