provider_version_guard

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly annotation by stating that it reports upgrade commands rather than executing them, and that upgrade checking is optional. It also implies external version-source queries for the optional check, consistent with openWorldHint. 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the optional behavior and the key output, making every sentence earn its place.

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 the rich schema descriptions and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers what the tool compares, the optional upgrade check, and the report contents including exact upgrade commands. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what happens when checkUpgrades is false, but that is implied and covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description loosely maps to checkUpgrades with 'optionally check whether a newer version is published' but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it compares installed provider CLI versions against contracted targets and reports drift/upgrade status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cli_versions, upstream_contracts, and cli_upgrade by focusing on comparison, drift reporting, and upgrade-command generation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to know which provider CLIs have drifted from their contracted versions and which can be upgraded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as directing actual upgrade execution to cli_upgrade, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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