Check for update

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: a 24 h cache and what fields come back ('current, latest, notes link, update command'). It does not say what happens on GitHub failure or rate limits, but the added caching detail goes meaningfully beyond the 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?

Four short clauses, all front-loaded: what it does, when to use it, behavioral caveat, return shape. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the four returned fields, plus the caching caveat. Nearly complete, though failure modes and the check-then-update workflow with grok_agent_update are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented param, so baseline is 3. The description's 'cached 24 h' explains the raison d'être of the force flag (bypass the cache), adding context beyond the schema text rather than merely restating it.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Compare the installed bridge with the latest GitHub release.' The read-only framing implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling grok_agent_update, though that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the check-vs-apply split.

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?

'Use when the user asks about updates or instructions show an update line' gives an explicit trigger condition. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over grok_agent_update (i.e. check first, then apply), so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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