Changelog & Breaking Changes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the nature of the output (version breakdown, changelog URLs, release notes) and its purpose as a pre-update check, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and usage directive, followed by helpful examples. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the example list, but every section earns its place and structure is logical.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The inclusion of examples and the explicit ordering relative to depsonar_update makes it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'project' parameter as 'Project name or path' with 100% coverage. The description's examples (e.g., 'RoomPilot', 'my project') illustrate usage but do not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('changelogs and breaking changes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like depsonar_update. It also details the output (major/minor/patch breakdown, changelog URLs, release notes), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states 'Run this BEFORE depsonar_update to understand what will change,' naming the alternative and establishing a clear usage order. The three examples further illustrate when to use the tool, from specific package queries to project-wide checks.

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