get_update_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the default result is cached, refresh=true performs a network check, and critically it explicitly disclaims installing an update. This adds boundary information the annotations do not convey.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the misleading-interpretation guard ('never installs an update') placed last for emphasis. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the cache-vs-refresh behavior and the no-install boundary. It stops short of noting failure modes of the GitHub check or cache staleness, which would round it out for an open-world tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains what refresh=true actually does (a read-only GitHub check) rather than merely restating the boolean. It does not cover the default/reset semantics of refresh=false beyond the word 'cached', but that is a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the cached release status'), which is unambiguous and self-contained. None of the sibling tools (projects, sync status, docs, products) overlap, so no explicit sibling differentiation is required, but the description also doesn't need to name one.

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 default call reads the cache, and passing refresh=true triggers a live GitHub check. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no precondition or prerequisite information, and no statement of when the cached value is stale enough to warrant a refresh.

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