get_breaking_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by specifying the scope (same package) and the exact return shape, which goes beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded, covering purpose, usage, differentiation, and return schema in four sentences. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

The description provides usage context and return structure, but lacks details about optional parameters and their defaults. Since there is no output schema and the input schema has no descriptions, the tool is not fully self-contained for an agent; however, the core use case is well covered.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it only provides an example (`next@14`→`15`) and does not clarify the semantics of optional from_version/to_version, default behavior, or version format. This is a significant gap given the schema has no descriptions.

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's function: retrieving breaking changes between two majors of the same package, with a concrete example (`next@14`→`15`). It also distinguishes it from get_migration_path, making the resource and scope explicit.

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?

"USE WHEN: user is bumping a major; before recommending a major upgrade" explicitly defines the appropriate context. The note "Different from get_migration_path (same pkg vs. different pkg)" provides an alternative and clarifies when not to use this tool.

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