get_upgrade_steps

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the output (guides, breaking changes, codemod commands, GitHub tag source URLs), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, rate limits, or result size/pagination.

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?

One densely packed sentence that front-loads the core capability and then illustrates it with concrete version-pair examples. No filler, though the trailing parenthetical is long enough that it could be split for readability.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (migration steps, breaking changes, codemod commands, source URLs). The 5-parameter surface is fully covered by the schema, and no annotations exist to contradict. Only the absence of any guidance on result size or failure modes keeps it from a 5.

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 all five parameters including focus_area and package_manager are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Retrieves') plus concrete resource ('step-by-step migration guides, breaking changes, and official codemod commands between two versions'), with real-world examples (Tailwind v3->v4, ESLint v8->v9). It implicitly separates itself from search_versioned_docs and get_versioned_setup_guide by scoping to a version-to-version upgrade, though it never names a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'between two versions' framing, so an agent can infer this is the tool for upgrade planning. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against the sibling tools (e.g. check_dependency_compatibility vs this one).

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