check_version

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a check-only operation, compares against GitHub, affects two components, and returns JSON. The optional proxy_url also hints at network-dependent behavior. It does not describe failure modes, but core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the examples are terse but sufficient. No redundant or bloated content.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers invocation, parameter purpose, return format, and examples. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps include explicit error scenarios or when a proxy is required, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It does: proxy_url is described as an optional proxy URL for accessing GitHub, with a concrete example. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw schema type and default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '检查版本更新' (check version updates), comparing local versions against GitHub remote versions for both TrendRadar and MCP Server. This clearly differentiates it from all listed siblings, which are about news, data analysis, configuration, and notifications.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: check if an update is needed by comparing local and remote versions. It explains when the proxy_url parameter is relevant (for accessing GitHub) and gives usage examples. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternative tools, but no sibling tool serves a similar version-check purpose.

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