check_for_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but there's no mention of network dependency, rate limits, or what the tool does with the result. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent of behavioral traits.

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 a single, focused sentence without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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, parameterless tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks any mention of the return value or expected output (e.g., a boolean or version number), which could be important for an agent deciding how to act. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to describe. The description adds minimal value here but doesn't need to.

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's function: 'Check GitHub for a newer version of Conductor.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (GitHub, Conductor version), making it distinct from sibling tools focused on workers, chains, and groups.

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 purpose inherently implies when to use the tool (to see if an update is available), but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. With no similar sibling tools, the lack of explicit guidance is not critical, but it remains minimal.

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