Get Breaking Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered without needing restatement. The description adds useful context by stating the output categories and migration hints, as well as the project-context requirement. It omits minor details like optional inputs or permission needs, but those are less critical given the read-only annotation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It leads with the action, immediately describes the result categories, and ends with the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description wisely states the return shape: changes classified as Breaking, NonBreaking, or Deprecated with migration hints. It also covers the project-context prerequisite, and all three required parameters are documented in the schema. Minor gaps around the meaning of project context or behavior when there are no changes prevent a perfect score.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, documenting each parameter as a public GUID for the spec, source version, and target version. The description's phrase 'between two specification versions' aligns with the schema but does not add new format, default, or relationship semantics beyond what the schema already states. Therefore the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: identify and classify breaking changes between two specification versions. It also explains the classification categories (Breaking, NonBreaking, Deprecated) and migration hints. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_versions or get_contract_drift, so it falls short of full 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?

The description makes the core use case obvious and includes the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' It does not say when to prefer this tool over compare_versions, get_contract_drift, or generate_changelog, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. This provides only implied usage guidance beyond the prerequisite.

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