radar_check_updates

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that enabling fetch_remote queries tracked GitHub releases and RSS feeds before scoring. It leaves the disabled-fetch path, possible state changes, source failures, latency, and rate-limit behavior unspecified.

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 operation and scoring criteria are front-loaded in one compact sentence, followed by two relevant parameter explanations. There is no redundant or decorative wording.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and both inputs without needing to explain the return shape. The remaining gaps are the non-remote data path, preference prerequisites or provenance, and operational failure behavior.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section does essential work by documenting both parameters. The meaning of limit is precise and fetch_remote explains its enabled behavior and sources, but what data is used when fetching is disabled remains implicit.

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 specific verbs and resources: it fetches and scores recent AI/LLMOps updates using developer preferences and cost metrics. It does not explicitly differentiate this update check from siblings such as radar_ingest_custom or radar_set_stack_profile.

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 domain and scoring criteria imply when the tool is useful, and fetch_remote describes one conditional behavior. There is no explicit guidance on when to disable remote fetching, whether preferences must be configured first, or when a sibling tool would be preferable.

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