Check for Paperless Updates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond those hints: it checks upstream rather than the installed instance, and explains that the two only coincide when the instance is current. Missing details like network failure handling or rate limits are secondary given the openness implied by openWorldHint.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the critical distinction from get_server_info is stated immediately, and the caveat about coincidence is compact and relevant. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering behavioral safety, the description fills the remaining gap by explaining what the output means ('newest release published on GitHub' vs. 'installed version') and how it relates to the connected instance. It also routes the agent to the complementary tool for the installed version, making the call context complete.

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%, so the schema carries no burden. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and it does not attempt to pad that space with irrelevant detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('newer release of Paperless-NGX upstream'), and clearly distinguishes it from related tools by explicitly noting it does not report the installed version. It names the sibling get_server_info for that purpose, making the differentiation concrete even without comparing schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (to check for a newer upstream release) and directs it to get_server_info for the installed version. It also clarifies the relationship between the two values, which prevents common misuse where an agent might expect the installed version.

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