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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers side effects, and the description adds useful output context by stating that results are classified as Breaking, NonBreaking, or Deprecated with migration hints. It does not detail error behavior, but the read-only nature is clear and not contradicted.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output context, usage direction, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description provides enough context for selection and invocation: the purpose, the classification output, the alternative tool, and the project-context requirement. Since there is no output schema, the brief output description helps, though more detail on the exact response structure would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with clear meanings for specId, sourceVersionId, and targetVersionId. The tool description does not add significant extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Identify and classify') and clearly names the resource ('breaking changes between two specification versions'). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling compare_versions by noting that this one returns classified breaking changes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for classified breaking changes') and when not to ('for the full structural diff use compare_versions'). It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context,' giving clear selection guidance.

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