sassy_update_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions caching behavior ('Caches the result for 5 minutes') and how to bypass it via force=True, providing useful operational detail. It does not, however, describe return format or potential network side effects, but for a check tool this is reasonably 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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a specific behavioral note. No fluff or redundancy; 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 simple one-parameter check tool, the description covers purpose, caching, and parameter semantics. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, version string), which is a notable gap given there is no output schema. This leaves the agent guessing about the result format.

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 zero description coverage, and the description fully explains the only parameter: 'pass force=True to bypass the cache.' This gives clear meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean type and default value.

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 action: 'Check for a newer SassyMCP release' and uses the apt-update metaphor for added clarity. It is distinct from sibling tools like sassy_update_list and sassy_update_apply, which handle listing and applying updates respectively.

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 usage (when you need to check for a newer release) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, though the apt-update equivalent gives some contextual hint.

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