aura_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses caching ('live, hourly cache'), a non-failing contract ('Never fails'), the degraded-path return shape ('offline registries return latest:null'), and the response fields (update_available, notice). That is unusually complete behavioral context for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is compared and how fresh it is, followed by the remediation command and the failure contract. No filler; every sentence adds an actionable fact.

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 no-param diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return fields, edge-case behavior, freshness, and the recommended follow-up action. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the tool takes no input. Baseline 4 applies.

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 states the resource precisely: a comparison of the running version against the npm-published version, with a live hourly cache. It is distinguishable from siblings by noting that aura_status already carries the same verdict, though it never gives an explicit leading verb like 'check' or 'compare'.

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?

'aura_status already carries this verdict on every call' is a clear signal that this tool is usually redundant, which functions as a when-not-to-use rule pointing to a specific sibling. It stops short of an explicit directive such as 'call this only when you don't already have a status payload'.

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