check_for_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the check compares a local plugin against a published version and returns an update command, implying a read-only network operation that does not mutate anything. It does not state network reachability requirements, behavior when already up to date, or whether anything is cached.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and then the returned artifact. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-param, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns (the update command). Minor gaps remain around the not-up-to-date case and environment requirements, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies since nothing needs clarifying.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (published version of the local JobJourney plugin) plus an outcome (show the update command). It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, none of which deal with plugin versioning or updates.

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 intent is self-evident for a version-check utility, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g., on startup, before an upgrade) and no alternatives are referenced, but none are needed here.

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