Write upgrade PR summary

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 states the tool generates a summary, but does not clarify if it reads existing data, modifies state, requires network access, or has side effects. There is no mention of output format details, error cases, or performance considerations. The agent is left guessing about mutation risk and dependencies.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leading to gaps in parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. It earns high marks for conciseness but loses some for not being front-loaded with critical info like parameter explanations.

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 sibling tools (e.g., generate_upgrade_plan, detect_upgrade_paths) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what input the summary is based on (e.g., an existing plan), how the upgrade route is determined, or what the output contains. The tool is contextually incomplete for reliable agent selection.

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%, meaning the description must fully explain both parameters. The description mentions neither 'targets' nor 'rootPath' – it does not define what targets are (e.g., package names, file paths), what rootPath refers to, or how they affect the summary. The agent has no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names and types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('reviewer-friendly markdown summary of the planned upgrade route'). It clearly indicates the tool produces a structured summary for a specific audience (reviewers) related to an upgrade plan. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like generate_upgrade_plan or analyze_project, which could overlap in scope.

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 such as generate_upgrade_plan or analyze_project. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need a prior plan), context (e.g., after detecting paths), or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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