check_runtimeCheck DSH plugin compatibility for a given runtime version by evaluating each plugin's engines.dsh range, returning compatible, incompatible, and unknown results with install commands.
传入当前 DSH 版本号（支持预发布版本，例如 0.2.1-rc.2），按每个插件最新版本的 engines.dsh 范围判断兼容性，返回兼容 / 不兼容 / 无法判断的插件列表及安装命令。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dsh_version | Yes | 当前 DSH 版本号，例如 0.2.1-rc.2 或 0.1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the judgment is made against each plugin's *latest* version's engines.dsh range, and the output is three explicit buckets (compatible / incompatible / undeterminable) plus install commands. It does not mention whether any registry/network lookup occurs or how staleness of 'latest' is handled.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler, and the return shape is stated up front at the end. It opens with the input parameter rather than the purpose verb, which slightly weakens front-loading of the tool's function.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so (three verdict categories plus install commands) while also explaining the comparison logic. For a one-parameter, read-only check, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: prerelease versions are explicitly supported and a concrete example (0.2.1-rc.2) is given, which matters because prerelease range matching is a common source of ambiguity.
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 (judge compatibility) and resource (DSH runtime vs. each plugin's latest engines.dsh range), and its input/output contract makes it unmistakably distinct from the sibling search_plugins / get_plugin / list_categories tools. An agent knows exactly what it gets: three categorized plugin lists plus install commands.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of install commands and compatibility verdicts suggests a pre-install/pre-upgrade check, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or what the alternatives are. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.