upgrade_readiness

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing output content (breaking changes with file and line) and candidly noting 'what a static scan cannot confirm'. It still says nothing about cost, runtime or request behavior beyond the schema's offline flag.

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 lead sentence front-loads the core verdict and deliverables, followed by short routing and provenance sentences. The enumerated output clause is dense but every element is informative, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly (verdict, located breaking changes, behavior/tooling changes, limitations). With annotations covering safety and the schema covering params, an agent has what it needs to select and call this correctly.

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 both path and offline are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no further semantics about the parameters beyond the read-only framing.

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 specific verb and resource ('Go/no-go for upgrading a React Native or Expo project to the newest version') and enumerates the verdict values it returns. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming upgrade_plan and scan_project explicitly.

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 says 'Use this first when someone asks whether or how to upgrade' and routes the agent to upgrade_plan for ordered steps, plus clarifies it shares a scan with scan_project. The when-to-use and the alternative are both stated.

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