Check SDK freshness

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

The annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and the explicit side-effect boundary 'Does not bump the pin.' It also discloses the response shape including the conditional suggestedActions, which adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries information: purpose, endpoint, response, conditionality of suggestions, read-only guarantee, and usage triggers. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains compact without redundant filler.

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 low-complexity read-only check with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool compares, when to use it, what it returns, and the boundary that it never mutates the dependency pin.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'current' and 'package', so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not materially extend the parameter semantics, which matches the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 and resource: 'Compare a published @mushi-mushi/* package version against the catalog (GET /v1/sdk/latest-version)'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools by focusing on SDK version drift, and explicitly notes it does not bump the pin, separating it from mutating fix tools.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when Dependabot or mushi upgrade --check reports a drift, or before dispatching a fix that assumes a current SDK.' It also states a clear boundary: 'Does not bump the pin — that stays a human/Dependabot change,' telling the agent when the tool is not the right action.

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