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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions returning breaking changes, which suggests a read operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the package or version is not found.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core functionality and provides a practical benefit statement.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and limited parameter info, the description is too brief. It does not cover error handling, return format, or edge cases, leaving agents with significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 description mentions 'package + version' but does not explain the parameter names 'package_id' and 'current_version', nor their expected formats (e.g., exact version string, package identifier). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only vague context.

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 clearly states the verb ('return breaking changes since') and the resource ('package + version'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_tracked' and 'get_package' by focusing on breaking changes for a specific package version.

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 implies usage as an alternative to inspecting changelogs ('Saves agents from inspecting changelogs'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_recent_breaking'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions what the record contains but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the package is not tracked).

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 that is direct and efficient. It conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main output aspects. However, it could mention error cases or the exact response structure, but it is largely adequate.

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 only parameter, package_id, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds no detail about its format, expected values, or examples. It relies solely on the parameter name.

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 clearly states it retrieves the full record for one tracked package, including latest version, recent breaking events, and source URLs. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tracked (listing) and get_recent_breaking (breaking events only).

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 implies it is for getting a single package's full record, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_version or list_tracked. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function (get recent breaking changes) without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, aggregation scope, pagination, or what constitutes a 'breaking change'. The description is minimal and does not add valuable behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and filtering hint. It is concise and free of unnecessary words, but could be improved by structuring the filtering options more clearly.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of changes with package, version, date), pagination, or any limitations. The agent lacks context to understand the full behavior and output structure.

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%, and the description only says 'Filter by days/ecosystem', which loosely matches the two parameters but provides no specifics on valid ecosystem values or the exact meaning of since_days. The agent is left without guidance on allowed inputs or format, adding marginal value over the raw schema.

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 'Recent breaking changes across all tracked packages' with filtering options, distinguishing this aggregation tool from sibling tools like list_tracked (which lists packages), get_package (details for a package), and check_version (specific version check). The verb 'get' with the resource 'recent breaking' is specific.

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 implies usage for viewing breaking changes across all packages and filtering by days or ecosystem, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like get_package or check_version for package-level details. Usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation that returns version and breaking-change counts, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential details like authentication, rate limits, or side effects, though those are likely minimal for a list 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence of 10 words with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It states the action and outputs. It could be slightly improved by clarifying that the ecosystem parameter filters results, but this is inferred. No mention of pagination or ordering, but likely not needed for a simple list.

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% for the single optional parameter 'ecosystem', and the schema description already explains it with examples. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('packages we track') and specifies output fields (latest version + breaking-change counts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_package (single package) and get_recent_breaking (breaking changes).

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 implies usage for listing tracked packages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_package or check_version. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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