scan_git_range

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

Annotations already confirm it is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds substantial context: the default upstream range, the error message when no upstream exists, how to work around it, truncation behavior for max_findings (which adds truncated, total_findings, etc.), and the return shape.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses labeled sections for guidance, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds actionable detail without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the Returns section describes the report fields; annotations cover safety; all parameters are documented; and error behavior is explained. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden. Its Args section documents all five parameters with defaults, semantics, and edge cases (e.g., max_commits limits newest commits; max_findings 0 means no limit), fully compensating for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scan the commits in base..head') and clarifies the default range as 'what git push would send', which implicitly distinguishes it from scan_git_history and scan_git_staged by scope. However, it never names a sibling alternative, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use directive ('Run this before pushing') and explains default behavior plus error recovery. It does not state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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