diff_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no code scan occurs and defaults to the installed version, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and a key constraint, and the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality, usage guidance, and a behavioral note (no code scan). It could elaborate on the output format, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description text adds minimal information about parameters beyond implying that from_version defaults. It does not explain the meaning of 'language' or the format of 'to_version'. The description adds little value over the raw schema for understanding parameters.

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 ('list'), identifies the resource ('API changes between two versions of a package'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_upgrade by adding '(no code scan)'. This clearly defines the tool's scope.

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 when to use ('understand a library's breaking changes in the abstract — e.g. when planning a migration') and when not to ('For 'what breaks in my code', use check_upgrade instead'). Also mentions the default baseline behavior, providing complete guidance.

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