analyze_upgrade

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does state that the AI analyzes breaking changes and suggests affected files/fix methods, and notes that without a changelog it uses general knowledge. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like reading files from project_root or whether modifications are suggested vs. executed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the core purpose.

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?

Given the output schema exists and parameters are documented, the description covers the main function but lacks usage context and comparison with sibling tools. It is minimal but not insufficient for an analysis tool; however, it could benefit from mentioning when to use it.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The description doesn't mention how the parameters influence behavior beyond what schema already states.

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 analyzes breaking changes during package version upgrades and proposes affected files and modification methods. The specific verb 'analyze' and resource 'package upgrade' distinguish it from sibling tools like scan_dependencies and list_packages.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings, no mention of alternatives or typical scenarios. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to determine applicability.

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