Check for catalog changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the comparison mechanism, the live-vs-cached nature, and the kind of results reported. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it performs network access, or what the exact return shape is. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable scope limitation. Every word 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and constraint. However, it leaves ambiguity about what happens when 'known' is omitted, and it does not describe the return format beyond 'reporting brands'. Adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'known' is already documented as an optional map of slug to sha256. The description adds context by linking this to the notion of 'cached' state and 'published sha256', which reinforces the semantics but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific action ('Compare getdesign.md's live signed index against what is cached') and a precise outcome ('reporting brands that are new or whose published sha256 changed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval and installation tools, and the restriction to getdesign.md further narrows scope.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: when checking for catalog updates via digest comparison. It also states a limitation ('Only getdesign.md publishes digests, so only it can be checked this way'), which helps an agent avoid misapplying it to other providers. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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