memory_check_update

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

Without annotations, the description fully describes behavior: read-only check, no modifications, returns update instructions. It is transparent about its non-destructive nature and the steps it takes.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The main purpose is front-loaded, with only four short sentences that each add value. No unnecessary words.

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?

Everything relevant is covered: purpose, mechanism, side effects, and output. The existence of an output schema is noted, and the description already mentions returning instructions, so it is complete for a simple check tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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The description clearly states the tool checks for a newer version of the Memory MCP server, using a specific verb ('check') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_version by focusing on update availability.

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 explains how the tool works (GitHub Releases, fallback to git commit comparison) and what it doesn't do (no modifications). It provides guidance on when to use it, though it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use.

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