openmausbot_cua_check_update

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds small context by clarifying that no installation occurs and that the check targets the configured release channel, but it does not address return behavior or any other runtime details. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, scope, and key side-effect disclaimer with no filler. Every phrase adds value.

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 zero-parameter read-only check with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. Nothing about invocation or output format is needed because the output schema covers return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description's reference to the 'configured' release channel confirms the tool operates on existing configuration rather than requiring inputs.

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 names a specific action ('Check'), a specific target ('configured cua-driver release channel'), and explicitly scopes out installation ('without installing anything'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from a hypothetical update/install action and from sibling status/list tools.

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 conveys that this is a safe, non-installing check, so an agent can infer it is appropriate when merely inspecting update availability. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the routing largely implied.

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