check_previs_updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/network profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new context: no GitHub token is required (no auth setup needed) and nothing is installed as a side effect, which reinforces the read-only contract.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the expected agent phrasing and the no-install guarantee. Slightly loose in that a quoted instruction is embedded, but nothing is wasteful.

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 and no parameters, so the description should say roughly what the check returns (version comparison? availability flag?). It covers the network and safety angles but leaves the return/result shape implicit, which a caller must discover by invoking.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly does not invent any. Baseline 4 applies.

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+resource: queries GitHub for Previs updates. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_previs_update_notes and prepare_previs_update by being the read-only check step, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied by "Havendo novidade… posso instalar?" and "Nada é instalado", suggesting this is the pre-check before prepare_previs_update. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer the ordering.

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