get_updates

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation type ('List' implies a non-mutating read), the scope (current branch), and the information payload (changelogs plus installed/installable flags). It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or whether this contacts an external update server, but for a simple list operation the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence conveys the verb, resource, scope, and return contents with zero redundancy. Every phrase earns its place: 'available... updates,' 'current branch,' 'changelogs,' and 'installed or installable' all add distinct value.

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, the description is nearly complete: it tells an agent what it lists and what fields to expect. The only notable omission is an explicit statement that the operation is safe/read-only, which is strongly implied by 'List' but never confirmed in a no-annotation context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameters requiring documentation, and the description's mention of 'current branch' refers to an operational scope rather than a user-supplied argument. Nothing is missing at the parameter level.

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 specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('available Sonarr updates') and a scoping qualifier ('for the current branch'). It further specifies what is included (changelogs, installed/installable status), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. Among the large sibling list, no other tool covers update availability, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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 establishes clear context: this tool surfaces available updates and their status for the current branch, so an agent knows to call it when checking for Sonarr updates. No sibling provides update listing, so alternatives need not be named, and there are no exclusions stated. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use directive, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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