get_breaking_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the return shape but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or data freshness). It does not contradict 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 three brief sentences, front-loading the core purpose and using structured labels ('USE WHEN', 'RETURNS'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 covers the core use case, sibling distinction, and return format. However, parameter guidance is missing (e.g., defaults for optional versions), and while the return is described, the lack of an output schema means more detail about the response structure would be helpful. Overall adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning or constraints beyond the schema itself. For instance, it does not clarify that 'from_version' and 'to_version' should be major versions or what happens if omitted. The self-explanatory parameter names partially compensate, but the lack of explicit guidance is a notable gap.

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 retrieves breaking changes between two majors of the same package, with a concrete example (next@14→15). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_migration_path' by scope (same package vs. different package), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage guidance: 'USE WHEN: user is bumping a major; before recommending a major upgrade.' It also implies when not to use (different package) by contrasting with get_migration_path, fulfilling the dimension criteria perfectly.

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