Check now for a newer version

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the check 'bypasses the once/day throttle' and reports the availability and update instructions. This reveals a rate-limit bypass behavior and the tool's side effect of performing a network call. It does not mention potential failure modes, but for a check tool the description is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and behavior, and the second providing context about the daily automatic check. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant 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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to invoke it, and what it returns. It explains the bypass behavior and the nature of the report. The presence of sibling tools is addressed through the clear focus on forcing an immediate 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the schema is empty and description adds no parameter details. Per the instructions, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline 4. The description doesn't need to explain anything about parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 action: 'Forces an immediate check against GitHub' and the outcome: 'reports whether a newer version is available plus how to update.' This distinguishes it from siblings like dismiss_update, which is about dismissing an update notification, and status, which likely shows current state. The verb 'check' is specific and the resource 'GitHub' is explicit.

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 provides context by noting that 'normally the check runs automatically once a day', implying the tool is for when an immediate check is desired. It gives a clear scenario for use (bypassing the daily throttle) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is solid usage guidance without being exhaustive.

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