Check for panel update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The one added claim, 'Read-only when called without force', implies a conditional non-read-only mode that the annotations do not support and that the schema cannot express, so it muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence, while brief, is the source of the confusion, but the text is not bloated.

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 read-only status check with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what is returned (e.g. availability/version signal) and how it relates to danger_update_panel. Instead it omits the return semantics and introduces an undocumented `force` mode, leaving the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% for the single `check` parameter, which normally warrants a baseline of 3. However, the description never mentions `check` and instead references a nonexistent `force` parameter, which could lead an agent to pass an invalid argument; this is worse than adding no parameter information at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Report whether a newer panel release is available'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling danger_update_panel, which performs the actual update, so an agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus danger_update_panel, nor any prerequisites. The only situational cue is 'when called without force', which refers to a mode that has no counterpart in the input schema, so it is ambiguous rather than helpful.

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