check_updates

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

The description discloses the tool detects modified files and can automatically re-index them. However, it lacks detail on whether the check operation is purely read-only or has side effects, what 'detects' means in terms of scanning, and any permission requirements. Since no annotations are provided, the description falls short of fully disclosing behavioral traits.

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 at two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the optional behavior, making it easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and the key option. It lacks some detail on the detection process, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 single parameter 'auto_update' is fully described in the schema with a default and description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating the optional re-indexing behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 all indexed documents for updates and optionally re-indexes them. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'detects', 're-indexes') and identifies the resource ('indexed documents'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_url_updates' by specifying 'all indexed documents'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'add_document', 'remove_document', and 'rescrape_document', the description does not indicate when checking for updates is appropriate or when other tools should be used instead.

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