syncthing_upgrade_available

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what is checked, freshness of the result, or whether it performs a network lookup (implied by openWorldHint but unexplained).

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?

It is extremely short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope to earn the two words used.

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 two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no way to know the query semantics, the meaning of the optional fields/instance filters, or the shape of the result.

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?

Two parameters exist (fields, instance) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either. The description must compensate for the documentation gap but provides none, so the agent cannot know what these parameters do.

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 'Upgrade available.' merely restates the tool name (syncthing_upgrade_available) without stating what the tool actually does — e.g., whether it checks for available upgrades or reports them. It conveys no verb+resource beyond the name itself, which is a textbook tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to sibling tools like syncthing_system_version or syncthing_restart_required. An agent receives no routing information whatsoever.

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