pending_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, uses apt-get simulation on Debian/Ubuntu and dnf updateinfo/check-update on RHEL-family, never installs. It also mentions possible error (pkg_manager_not_supported) and return format.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a note. It front-loads the purpose and quickly covers behavior, supported systems, return format, and errors. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is completely sufficient. It covers purpose, behavior, supported systems, return type, and error conditions.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter instance_id, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema description. The baseline is 3.

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's purpose: checking pending package updates on one instance, including security vs total counts, reboot-required state, and sample package names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which focus on package updates.

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 implies usage when you need pending update info for a specific instance and is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when to pick a different tool.

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