check_project_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose ('check') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, performs network calls, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it does not specify what the check returns (e.g., a boolean, a list of updates, or detailed information), leaving the agent to guess. This gap is partially mitigated by the high schema coverage but not fully addressed.

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 input schema fully describes the 'target' parameter (100% coverage), including its role as a project root directory containing boilerforge.lock.json. The description adds only the 'scaffolded project' context, which is minimal and not essential given the schema's clarity.

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 uses the verb 'check' with a specific resource ('scaffolded project') and purpose ('boilerplate updates available'), making its function clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_boilerplates, get_boilerplate, search_boilerplates, and scaffold_project by identifying a distinct action and target.

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 clearly implies when to use: for scaffolded projects that may have boilerplate updates. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that the agent can infer it is not for listing, getting, searching, or scaffolding boilerplates.

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