check_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, makes a single network request using git ls-remote, and does not modify files. However, it does not mention potential network failures or rate limits, which are minor omissions for a simple check.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, followed by detailed behavioral notes in a single paragraph, and a bullet-like list of return values. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no parameters and no annotations, the description provides all necessary information: purpose, behavior, usage guidance, and return values. The presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals) further reduces the need to describe return structure in detail.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by explaining the return format ('Up to date' message or version number with upgrade command), which is beyond the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 Flaiwheel version on GitHub. It includes a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Flaiwheel version'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which serve a similar update-checking purpose.

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 when to use the tool: 'when you suspect Flaiwheel may be outdated, or periodically to keep the server current.' Although it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context of sibling tools doesn't imply any overlapping functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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