check_for_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the check is a network round trip, returns immediately with the current state, and the final result arrives asynchronously via get_state's 'update' key or an 'update' event. It also documents the 409 failure mode when update checks are disabled, and explains the meaning of the return fields. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 long (around 250 words) but information-dense and front-loaded, starting with purpose, then usage, then behavior, then return format. Every sentence adds context relevant to an agent's decision. While somewhat lengthy, the absence of annotations and output schema justifies the extra detail.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior, return values, asynchronous nature, failure mode, and relationship to sibling tools. Since there is no output schema, it explains the exact return fields and their semantics. It also tells the agent how to read the result later via get_state or an event, making it complete for practical use.

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 the schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to add. It does, however, describe the return object, which is useful given no output schema.

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 function: 'Ask Plonk whether a newer release exists, and report what is installed.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool install_update by noting it is a pre-check and that install_update refuses unless a newer release is already available.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user asks what version they run, whether Plonk is up to date, or before calling install_update.' It also gives an exclusion: if update checks are off, it fails with 409 and the agent should report back instead of retrying. This clearly outlines when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_state.

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