detect_breaking_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully narrows behavior by enumerating the breaking-change classes detected, but says nothing about scan scope (whole project vs. changed files), output format, or how the git-ref comparison is performed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the operation, the comparison basis, and the detected categories. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most decision-relevant information leads.

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 should at least frame what comes back; it partially does by listing the change categories. However, it omits result scope (whole project vs. diff range), and any indication of how findings are grouped or surfaced, leaving the agent under-informed about the response for a diff-analysis tool.

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 both parameters (project, since_ref) are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and accepted ref forms. The description's 'vs a git ref' phrase only loosely mirrors since_ref and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('detect breaking changes') and enumerates the exact change categories it flags (removed funcs/params, added required params, signature changes), so the agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_change_impact or get_changed_symbols, so an agent still has to guess which of the several change-analysis tools applies.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. Given siblings like get_changed_symbols, get_change_impact, and build_commit_summary, the absence of any routing cue (e.g. 'use this when you only care about API-breaking edits') leaves selection ambiguous.

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