list_breaking_changes

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

Describes the basic output (breaking changes) but lacks details on behavior such as whether it returns a list, error scenarios, or if output_format affects content. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and is moderately transparent.

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 is very concise but too brief, lacking structure and detail. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary information.

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?

With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters or output details, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 makes no mention of parameters. The agent has no clues about what 'base' and 'revision' represent, nor the options for 'output_format'.

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 identifies the tool's action as listing breaking changes in a revision. It distinguishes from sibling tools: validate_spec (validation), compare_specs (comparison), and generate_changelog (full changelog).

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?

No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus siblings. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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