get_changed_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it partially discharges it by disclosing defaults. The default file_filter of *.py is a meaningful behavioral trait (non-Python changes are silently excluded) and the default base branch of development is useful. It does not state read-only status, permissions, or limits, so it remains incomplete for a no-annotation 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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and economical. The Returns line is redundant given an output schema exists, but overall there is little waste.

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 only three optional parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and what each argument means. The main gap is that the *.py default silently narrowing results is not flagged as a caveat the agent should override.

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 compensate, and it does: all three parameters are named with their defaults and purpose. It stops short of giving format examples (e.g., glob syntax for file_filter or branch naming conventions) that would fully remove ambiguity.

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 (get) and resource (changed files) with a clear scope: the current branch. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_branch_diff or review_diff, which sound like they cover overlapping ground, so an agent must guess which to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the 'compare against base_branch' framing. There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_branch_diff, which appears to overlap heavily. An agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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