Check cross-package compatibility (not yet implemented)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the tool is not implemented, returns 'implemented=false' and no data, and warns against misinterpreting the response. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key status ('PLANNED'), followed by critical warnings and an alternative. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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 planned tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: status, behavior (returns implemented=false), misuse warning, and alternative. It is complete for the tool's current state.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not: the four required parameters (package_a, version_a, package_b, version_b) have no additional meaning beyond their names. The ecosystem parameter is described in schema but not in description, missing an opportunity to clarify its default and allowed values.

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 tool is a planned feature for compatibility analysis, explicitly marking it as 'PLANNED' and 'not yet implemented'. It differentiates from the sibling tool check_peer_compatibility by stating its scope (project-aware vs static SemVer check).

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 explicitly advises when not to use the tool ('Do not infer compatibility...') and provides a direct alternative ('use check_peer_compatibility instead'), giving clear usage guidance.

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