check_version

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.