memory_check_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it queries GitHub Releases first, falls back to git commit comparison, and asserts it does not modify anything. This gives the agent confidence in its read-only nature and the fallback logic.

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 concise with four short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose, method, side-effect clarification, and output description. No wasted words.

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 check tool with an output schema and zero parameters, the description provides complete context: purpose, method (two fallback sources), side-effect clarification (no modification), and output (update instructions). Nothing is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information (as none are needed) but explains the internal process and output. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description meets that.

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The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a newer version of the Memory MCP server is available.' This is a specific verb+resource pair, and it clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'memory_version' (which likely reports current version) and 'memory_update' (which likely performs the update).

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 explains when to use the tool ('Check if a newer version is available') and what it returns ('step-by-step update instructions'). It explicitly states that it does not modify anything, which implies it is safe for read-only checks. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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