compare_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares versions and analyzes breaking changes but does not clarify whether it is a read-only operation, what exactly constitutes 'breaking changes', whether external network/registry access is needed, or what the return format looks like. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. Every word contributes to the core purpose, with no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, edge cases, or operational details. It does not mention what the tool returns after analysis, any performance implications, or how breaking changes are determined. For an analytical tool with three required parameters, this is a notable 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 each parameter having a basic description ('Target version', 'Starting version', 'Name of the package'). The tool description adds the context of comparing versions but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, such as version format expectations or constraints. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Compare'), the resource ('different versions of a package'), and the specific outcome ('analyze breaking changes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_packages (which compares packages, not versions) and check_compatibility (which focuses on compatibility rather than breaking changes).

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 implies usage when comparing versions of a single package, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like compare_packages or check_compatibility, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of prerequisites or common scenarios, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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