check_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No extraneous words. It could be slightly improved with additional context, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool checks for updates, the description omits critical context: what the tool returns (e.g., list of items or boolean), whether it is safe to call repeatedly, and that it does not modify anything. Without an output schema, the description should provide hints about the return value. It is incomplete for decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information—it only repeats the general purpose. The schema already sufficiently documents both parameters, including the enum values for 'agent' and the optional nature of 'projectDir'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check for installed content items with newer versions available. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'have newer versions') and identifies the resource ('installed content items', 'knowledge base'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update' which likely perform the actual 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or when to use related tools like 'update' or 'list'. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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