check_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: it checks two components, compares local versions with GitHub remotes, and returns JSON results including an update-needed flag. The words 'check', 'compare', and 'judge' imply a read-only verification operation, though it does not explicitly state that no update is performed or discuss network failure behavior.

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 compact and well structured, with a front-loaded summary followed by Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every section adds practical value and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it explains the parameter, the return format, and provides invocation examples. Minor gaps remain around explicit sibling differentiation and external network assumptions, but the agent has enough information to call the tool 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 schema provides no description for proxy_url beyond type and default, so the description fully compensates by stating it is optional, explaining its purpose (accessing GitHub), and giving a concrete example URL plus call examples. This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to use the parameter correctly.

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: it checks version updates for both TrendRadar and MCP Server by comparing local versions against GitHub remote versions. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on status, storage, dates, and news rather than version checking.

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?

Usage is implied through the description and examples, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_system_status or get_storage_status. It gives examples of calling the tool but no exclusions or conditional guidance.

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