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 that the tool accesses GitHub (implying network dependency) and mentions an optional proxy. It also states the return value includes version comparisons and update necessity. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe failure behavior, which would be helpful.

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 a clear purpose statement, Args, Returns, and Examples. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and every section serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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 version-check tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, parameter, and return format sufficiently. It mentions both components checked and provides examples. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the tool is non-destructive, but this is strongly implied by the nature of a version check.

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 (0% coverage), so the description's Args section compensates well. It explains that proxy_url is optional, for accessing GitHub, and gives a concrete example ('http://127.0.0.1:7890'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 function: checking version updates for TrendRadar and MCP Server by comparing local versions against GitHub remote versions. It uses a specific verb ('检查' / check) and names the exact resources, distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are news-related.

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: if an agent needs to determine whether updates are available for TrendRadar or MCP Server, this tool is appropriate. Examples show basic usage and with a proxy, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage context is clear but not directly articulated.

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