get_recent_breaking

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.