Find breaking changes

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies anything, requires authentication, has side effects, or returns data. The description's single sentence provides no behavioral context at all, leaving the agent blind to how the tool behaves when invoked.

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 a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is not effectively structured. It is not front-loaded with the core action; the verb 'attach' is misleading. The sentence is wasteful because it fails to convey the tool's purpose clearly. Its brevity does not serve the goal of helping the agent correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (if anything), how packages are selected, or what 'migration references' and 'risk areas' consist of. The tool is part of a complex upgrade pipeline (14 sibling tools), yet the description offers no context to fit into that workflow.

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 adds no meaning to the three parameters (targets, rootPath, outputFormat). It does not explain what 'targets' refers to, how rootPath is used, or what the outputFormat enum values mean. The description only mentions 'selected packages' which loosely ties to targets but adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 states 'Attach official migration references and curated risk areas to selected packages.' The verb 'attach' is ambiguous for a find operation, and the title 'Find breaking changes' doesn't fully align with the action described. It vaguely implies the tool provides migration references and risk areas, but fails to clearly state that it identifies breaking changes. This is better than a tautology but lacks precision and sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., detect_upgrade_paths, scan_repo_for_deprecations). The description does not mention prerequisites, expected inputs, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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