Check for FeatureBoard updates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial detail: exactly one GET request to a specific URL, no request body (privacy), compares version locally, provides download links, and fails soft on network issues. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: technical details, privacy assurances, behavior, and error handling. It is appropriately sized without verbosity.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior comprehensively: action, URL, comparison, returned information, and error handling. It lacks only explicit output structure, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 input schema has zero parameters, with 100% schema coverage. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description aligns perfectly.

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 it explicitly checks for a newer FeatureBoard release via an HTTPS GET request to a specific URL. It naturally distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which perform update checks.

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 explains when to use the tool (to explicitly check for updates) and clarifies that it never runs automatically (no polling or background checks). It also mentions soft failure handling. Though no explicit 'when not to use' is given, the context is clear.

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