Проверить обновление прошивки

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a read-only, idempotent operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral value: it documents the admin-account requirement, the exact 'execute denied' error, the fact that this is an RCI limitation rather than a tool bug, and the agent's required response. This is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded first, and every subsequent sentence justifies its place: the admin requirement, the observed failure mode, the cause, and the do-not-or workaround instruction. It is detailed but not verbose.

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 parameter-free, read-only tool, this is nearly complete: an agent knows what is checked, what credential privileges are needed, and what to do when the router rejects the call. The only minor gap is that the exact return value or update payload is not described, and there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema has full coverage, so there is no parameter-specific meaning for the description to add. The description does provide helpful operational context about the configured update channel and admin credentials in the MCP server config, but since there are no parameters, it stays at the 0-parameter baseline of 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 states a very specific action: check whether a new KeeneticOS version is available through the router's component manager in the configured update channel. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling read-only tools such as get_version, which reports the installed version rather than update availability.

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 normal use context is clear — check for a firmware update availability — and the failure-handling guidance is explicit: on 'execute denied', tell the user to configure an admin account and do not try to bypass the restriction. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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