milehost_check_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently indicates a non-mutating check action on GitHub, but it does not clarify whether it downloads anything, what it returns, network or permission requirements, or how the branch parameter affects the check.

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 one focused, sentence-length definition with no filler or redundant detail. It is concise and readable, though front-loading the available-check behavior earlier would be marginally clearer.

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 read-only check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and source. However, it omits what kind of result the agent should expect (e.g., boolean, version string) and how the branch parameter influences the check, leaving some usability gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'branch' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the branch parameter or its default behavior, matching the baseline for full 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 states a specific verb ('Checks'), a clear resource ('newer version or schema update of MileHost MCP Server'), and the source ('GitHub'). It distinguishes from update-performing siblings like milehost_self_update by emphasizing availability checking, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies the tool should be used to determine whether an update exists, but it does not state when to choose it over milehost_self_update or when not to use it. There are no explicit alternative or exclusion conditions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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