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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the lack of side effects, and the description adds useful behavioral detail such as returning classified changes and migration hints. It does not overstate or contradict the annotation.

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 brief, direct, and contains no unnecessary information. It front-loads the main action and follows with return details and a prerequisite.

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 explains what the tool returns and identifies the required project context, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about how the two version IDs relate, but the parameter descriptions already cover that.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, including which version is source and which is target. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the schema coverage is complete, so this is adequate.

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 that the tool identifies and classifies breaking changes between two specification versions, which is a specific and actionable purpose. It also distinguishes the tool from generic comparison tools by mentioning the classification categories and migration hints.

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 makes the core use case clear and notes that project context is required, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with similar sibling tools like compare_versions or generate_changelog. The intended usage is implied but not stated as a direct recommendation or exclusion.

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