check_for_updates

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

The description discloses caching behavior (max 1 GitHub API call per 30 min), bypass condition, and return contents, adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It clarifies the tool's non-idempotent nature through the cache and force explanation.

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 four concise sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, returns, caching behavior, and usage recommendation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and usage. It is fully complete without needing to describe return structure since the output schema exists.

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 only parameter 'force' is fully explained in the description as bypassing the cache, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare boolean type.

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 the tool checks for a newer version of mcp-file-tools, a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling file operation tools by focusing on self-update functionality.

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 instructs to 'Call once at the start of each session,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the force parameter's conditional use (bypassing cache), which helps decide when to invoke it differently.

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