check_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains that the tool compares local and remote versions and returns a JSON result, which is useful. However, it does not disclose that this is a network operation that may fail or be slow, nor does it mention any dependencies like internet access or GitHub availability. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema that could affect invocation.

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 well-structured with a clear first line stating the core purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and Examples. It is concise, with no wasted sentences, and the examples are helpful. It 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the return value adequately. It does not mention error behavior or network prerequisites, but for this straightforward version-check tool, the description is sufficiently complete. The output schema further reduces the need to describe return fields.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section fully explains proxy_url as an optional proxy for accessing GitHub, with an example URL. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema type (string/null), compensating perfectly for the gap.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'version updates', and specifies it checks both TrendRadar and MCP Server components. It also explains the action: compare local vs GitHub remote version. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools (no other tool deals with version checking).

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 implies when to use it: when you need to determine if an update is required. It provides context about checking two components and comparing against GitHub, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Since there are no closely related sibling tools, a clear implicit usage context is sufficient.

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