verify_upgrade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the committed revision is unpacked into a temporary folder outside the project and deleted, telling the agent about filesystem side effects and cleanup. It stops short of describing the result format in detail.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison action, followed by the invocation trigger and the read-only side-effect note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the three categories of result (fixed, new, version movement). Combined with the read-only guarantee and the usage trigger, an agent has everything needed to 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that the comparison is revision-vs-working-tree and that the revision defaults to HEAD, clarifying what 'base' and 'path' actually do together. It adds context beyond the field descriptions without introducing syntax detail the schema lacks.

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 precise action ('compares the React Native or Expo project as committed at a git revision with the working tree') plus the concrete outputs ('what got fixed, what is new and how versions moved'). This clearly separates it from siblings like upgrade_plan (planning) and scan_project (static analysis).

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 the trigger condition: 'Call it after an upgrade or a dependency change.' That gives a clear usage context, but it never names an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. when to prefer upgrade_plan), so it falls short of a 5.

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