Validate upgrade

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to say whether this tool mutates state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like modifying configs. The phrase 'when they are available' is vague and does not explain behavior if commands are missing or fail.

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 but underspecified. The core action is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on scope, behavior, and parameters. Every word is necessary, but it does not earn its keep due to missing critical guidance.

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 5 parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and 14 sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It omits return behavior, error handling, and how validation results are reported. The agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 compensate for all 5 parameters. The description names only the tool's actions but provides zero detail on parameters like 'include', 'rootPath', 'timeoutMs', 'outputFormat', or 'quietOnSuccess'. This leaves the agent guessing their usage and constraints.

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 it executes type-check, lint, test, and build commands, which gives a clear verb (execute) and resource (available commands). However, it does not differentiate this from siblings like 'check_compatibility' or 'run_upgrade_pipeline', which could overlap in purpose.

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 alternatives like 'scan_repo_for_deprecations' or 'apply_safe_codemods'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a project set up) or when it is appropriate to skip this step. The context of 14 sibling tools makes this a significant gap.

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