check_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the return format (JSON with version comparisons and update needs) and the optional proxy_url for network access. However, it does not detail permissions needed, network behavior, or potential side effects (e.g., whether it makes network calls), but the safe read-only nature is implied by 'check' and 'compare'. It meets basic transparency but lacks richer context.

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 structured with a clear summary, Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It's concise (under 10 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The section headers help parseability. Minor redundancy exists (the first line and the detailed paragraph repeat the same purpose), but overall it's well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no required params, no output schema details beyond description), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return format, and examples. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral notes (e.g., network prerequisites), but overall it's adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 one optional parameter (proxy_url) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema only shows the type. The description compensates by explaining 'proxy_url' is optional and provides an example of how to use it ('http://127.0.0.1:7890'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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 version updates for both TrendRadar and MCP Server, comparing local versions with GitHub remote versions. It explicitly names the resources involved (TrendRadar, MCP Server, GitHub) and the action (check/compare), making it distinct from sibling tools that handle news, RSS, or system functions.

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 when to use this tool (when checking for updates) and provides a clear example of using the optional proxy_url parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, but given the unique purpose (version checking), the context is clear enough.

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