detect_breaking_changes

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It lists detected change types but omits important details: whether the tool modifies state (likely read-only), output format, performance implications, or dependencies (e.g., requires a Git repository). This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and expected output.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words; every part adds value. Perfectly concise for the amount of information provided.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at return values, which it does indirectly by listing detected change types. However, it lacks information on how results are structured (e.g., diff list, summary). For a tool with only 2 parameters and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it confirms the purpose but doesn't clarify parameter values beyond existing descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool detects breaking API changes against a git ref and enumerates specific types of changes (removed funcs/params, added required params, signature changes). It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('breaking API changes vs a git ref'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_changed_symbols' or 'find_hotspots'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'get_changed_symbols') would be more appropriate. Implicitly, it is for comparing API versions, but lacks explicit usage context.

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