Get breaking changes in a version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it matches by major version against curated maps, reveals resolution details, and clarifies the meaning of found=false. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency beyond the structured fields.

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—four sentences, no fluff. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, version input, resolution, and result handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains tightly focused, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: input format, resolution, and behavior when no data exists. It mentions source citations and last_verified dates, but does not enumerate all return fields. Given the tool's complexity and annotations, it is largely complete, though a note on pagination or errors would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that version accepts SemVer ranges and that resolution is disclosed via match_type/resolved_via. This goes beyond the schema properties and helps an agent understand parameter usage and output expectations.

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 returns breaking changes for a package version upgrade, with citations and last_verified dates. It specifies version input as concrete or SemVer ranges and explains resolution disclosure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_compatibility or get_migration, missing a chance to clarify when this tool is the best choice.

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 gives some usage guidance, such as not to guess when found=false, and explains version matching and resolution. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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