get_intent_changes

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses output details (active intent title/description, file counts, warnings) and implies a read-only operation ('get'). It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but the verb 'get' and the output description make the behavior clear. A minor gap is the lack of explicit read-only declaration.

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 concise: a single-sentence purpose, followed by a structured list of what to expect, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It does so adequately by listing active intent info, file counts, and warnings. It also provides usage context. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., if repoPath is invalid) and assumes git availability. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the tool (retrieving uncommitted changes and intent info) but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get uncommitted changes in the repository along with the active intent info', specifying the verb (get) and resource (uncommitted changes + intent info). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_active_intent (which only checks active intent) and get_intents_for_file (which focuses on file-specific intents).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool before prompting the user about committing' and provides a concrete example of how to construct a commit prompt. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and hints at alternatives (e.g., not for other contexts).

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