Generate release notes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description reinforces no code modification and adds scope (API contracts only). This is consistent and adds context beyond annotations, though it could mention openWorldHint (e.g., no side effects besides reading).

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?

Single sentence of 29 words, front-loaded with action and outcome. No unnecessary details, every part adds value.

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?

For a read-only tool with 5 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains output (markdown, grouped) and purpose. It could mention that output is returned as markdown string, but overall sufficient.

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 80% (4/5 parameters documented). The description does not add further explanation beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'audience' enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates release notes in markdown from API spec changes, grouped into breaking/additions/other, tailored to audience. It explicitly says it does not modify code, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_specs or generate_migration_guide.

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?

Description states it analyzes API contract compatibility only and does not modify code, providing implicit guidance on when to use (for release notes) and when not (for actual code changes). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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