update_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses network access ('reads the release index over the network'), explicitly states it mutates nothing ('places nothing'), and draws the boundary that applying updates is a human action. It omits auth requirements, rate limiting, and caching behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second front-loads the behavioral constraint. No filler. The parenthetical schema reference and em-dash clause make it denser than ideal, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does (latest tag, SHA256 pins, action for this install). With no annotations it also covers the safety profile. What remains uncovered is auth/network failure behavior and how the path parameter scopes the check.

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?

One optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents 'subpath (default: project root)' via its own description, and the tool description adds nothing about how path alters the scope of the update check, which is a genuinely ambiguous point here.

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 check (does a newer CodeEraser release exist) and enumerates what comes back: the latest tag, its SHA256 pins, and one recommended action. That is concrete and specific. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like doctor, check, or scan, which an agent scanning the tool list might reasonably confuse with it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the name and the phrase 'the one action for this install' suggest this is the update-status probe. It never states when to prefer it over doctor/check/scan, nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. The note that applying is a human act at the CLI or GUI is useful context but is not a when-to-use rule.

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