agent_check_upgrades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation but omits details such as whether network calls are made, permissions required, rate limits, or what triggers an upgrade check. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about side effects.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be slightly more structured by including output or behavior hints. Still, it earns a high score for brevity without sacrificing clarity.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least hint at the return format or what 'available version upgrades' means. It does not specify whether the output is a list, boolean, or something else, leaving the agent uncertain about the result shape.

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 100% schema coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'all installed agents for available version upgrades,' making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'agent_install' and 'list_installed_agents' by focusing on upgrade availability rather than installation or listing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_agent_status' or 'list_installed_agents.' There is no indication of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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