Check native update compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results come from 'heuristic' rules (i.e., not authoritative) and unknowns are surfaced explicitly rather than silently resolved, which shapes how an agent should treat the 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the output caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 5-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description covers what is compared and flags the heuristic/unknowns nature of the result. It does not describe the comparison scope (which dependency classes, what counts as incompatible), leaving a small gap.

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%, with appId, channel, runtimeVersion, nodeModulesPath, and packageJsonPath all documented in-schema including defaults and connection-dependent requirements. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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 ('Compare') and resource ('local native dependencies' vs 'OtaKit release lane'), plus the mechanism used ('existing heuristic compatibility rules'). No sibling tool performs compatibility checking, so it is clearly distinguishable from the release/bundle management tools around it.

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 never says when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., before prepare_release or publish_release), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The context of 'update compatibility' implies a pre-flight check, but the agent must infer it.

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