check_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it compares local and remote versions and checks for updates, but does not mention side effects, network usage, or whether it modifies anything. The behavior is somewhat transparent but lacks depth.

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?

Description is concise with clear structure: purpose, Args, Returns, Examples. No wasted words, though the examples could be seen as slightly redundant given the simplicity. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 there is an output schema, the description's mention of return format suffices. It covers the tool's inputs and purpose. Could mention that it makes network calls, but overall adequate for a simple check tool.

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 single parameter proxy_url is well explained: 'optional proxy URL for accessing GitHub' with an example. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant value by providing usage context and a concrete example.

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 it checks version updates for both TrendRadar and MCP Server by comparing local version with GitHub remote version. The verb 'check' and resource 'version' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings by naming the two components.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like sync_from_remote or get_current_config. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network access) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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