nds_check_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-mutating nature (does not update), which is essential for trust. It doesn't describe return format or network error behavior, but the most critical trait is covered.

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 the key information front-loaded. No wasted words, each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value or outcome. While it clearly states the check and non-update behavior, it doesn't indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a version number, a boolean, or a message). This is a gap, though the tool's simplicity mitigates it somewhat.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it checks the npm registry for a newer nds-mcp version, using the specific verb 'check' and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all focus on nuclear data queries.

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?

Provides a clear context for use (checking for newer versions) and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not perform updates'). It lacks named alternatives, but the exclusion is valuable guidance.

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