check_version

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

The description explains the tool compares local and remote versions, returns JSON with update info, and mentions the optional proxy parameter. It is transparent about its network-dependent behavior, though it does not discuss error handling (e.g., if GitHub is unreachable).

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for description, args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format. It could note potential failure modes, but overall it is complete for a version check utility.

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 description thoroughly explains the single parameter 'proxy_url' as an optional proxy for GitHub access, adding significant meaning beyond the schema (which only defines it as string|null). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 vs GitHub remote. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on news, analysis, and RSS operations.

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 basic context and an example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. For a simple utility, this is adequate but not explicit.

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