evaluate_schema_evolution

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the process (generates mocks, validates, reports) but does not discuss side effects, performance, or auth requirements. Adequate for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then conditions and output. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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?

Covers inputs and usage well, but lacks explanation of output format or return value. Since no output schema, the description should specify what 'reports exactly which fields and constraints' means in practice (e.g., format, file, console).

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by clarifying behavior: 'omit to automatically retrieve last committed version via git show HEAD' for old_schema_content, and 'absolute path' for schema_file_path.

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 uses specific verbs ('detect breaking changes', 'generates mocks', 'validates', 'reports') and identifies the resource ('Zod schema evolution'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_valid_mock' or 'introspect_schema'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when you changed a schema and want to know if existing test fixtures will break.' Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but sibling list provides context.

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