check_guardian_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses caching behavior, network/CPU overhead, direct GitHub API usage, and the JSON return contents. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe failure behavior, but the disclosed traits go well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by caching behavior, parameter details, and return format. Every sentence adds information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 single-parameter optional tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, caching, the parameter, and the return fields. It is slightly less explicit about exact JSON key names or error handling, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the 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 input schema only provides a title and default for force_refresh, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'Set to True to bypass cache and query GitHub API directly.' This explains the behavioral consequence of the parameter, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a newer version or commit of VPS-Guardian-MCP is available on GitHub.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the unrelated server-operation siblings and states exactly what the tool does.

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 description gives clear usage context by explaining the 5-minute cache and explicitly telling the agent to set force_refresh to True to bypass cache and query GitHub API directly. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but no sibling tool offers this functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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