check_updates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does this well by stating that calling this tool advances the last-check marker unless peek is true. It also explains what kinds of updates are returned, making the tool's behavior understandable.

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 dense but purposeful: it lists the relevant update categories, gives a clear usage instruction, and discloses the side effect. The opening phrase 'Close the async loop' is slightly abstract, but the em-dash list grounds it quickly. No sentences are wasted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral contract: what updates are returned, when to call it, and how the marker side effect works. It does not describe response format or pagination, but for this tool's apparent role as a session-start update aggregator, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some useful context, especially the meaning of peek (look without advancing the marker) and the default 'since your last check' window, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 explains what the tool does: it returns all asynchronous activity relevant to the user since their last check, enumerating specific event types such as answers, debate on suggestions, verdicts, marks, edits, and watched-tag items. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lesson or list_questions, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Call this at the start of a session,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. It also references watch_tags for context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools, but the usage context is clear enough.

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