check_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool accesses GitHub, supports an optional proxy URL, and returns JSON with version comparisons. It implies a read-only check operation and provides the key network-access detail.

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 compact, clearly structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds value, and the examples are helpful without being redundant.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and how to use the proxy parameter. It is complete and self-contained.

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 schema provides no description for proxy_url (0% coverage), but the description explains its purpose (optional proxy for GitHub access) and gives a concrete example. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 checks for version updates, specifying it checks both TrendRadar and MCP Server. It distinguishes the tool by comparing local versions with GitHub remote versions, which is a specific verb+resource scope not shared by siblings.

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 provides clear context: use it to check for updates for both components. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to overlap with this functionality, so the implied usage is sufficient.

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