check_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior (compares versions, checks GitHub) and mentions network access (proxy support), but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples). Every sentence earns its place - the first paragraph states the purpose, the Args section explains the parameter, Returns describes output, and Examples show usage. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (version checking with network access) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and output format. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error handling or performance characteristics.

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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining what 'proxy_url' does (access GitHub through a proxy) and providing an example format. Since there's only one parameter and the description covers it completely, this exceeds the baseline expectation.

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 specific action ('检查版本更新' - check version updates) and resources involved (TrendRadar and MCP Server). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools which focus on news analysis, data processing, notifications, and system operations 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to compare local vs. remote versions and determine if updates are needed). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which all serve different purposes.

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