check_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that it contacts only this project's GitHub releases (network scope), that it works even when the knowledge base is not built, and what not_ready conveys. It still omits whether the call is cached, rate-limited, or purely read-only, so it falls short of a complete behavioral picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the network scope, then the action/return contract. The enumeration is dense but every clause maps to a real behavior or routing decision; only the nested parenthetical about build_locally is slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return contract, and it does: action, reason, not_ready, and upgrade_to. Together with the edge-case note about running before a knowledge base is built, an agent has everything needed to call it and react to its result.

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 takes no input parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the baseline, a 0-parameter tool scores 4. The description correctly spends no space on nonexistent inputs.

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: check whether a newer prebuilt knowledge base is published than the one installed. It also scopes the network call to this project's GitHub releases, so an agent knows exactly what this check touches, distinct from siblings like install_knowledge_base or list_stigs.

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?

It enumerates every outcome of action (install, upgrade_package, build_locally, none) and routes each to the concrete next step, naming install_knowledge_base, upgrade_to, and the stig-mcp-fetch/stig-mcp-ingest path. This is explicit when/when-not guidance tied to alternatives rather than inference.

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