detect_changes

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

No annotations provided and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, what input it requires, or any side effects (e.g., API calls, caching). The description is entirely opaque about behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It earns a middle score because while it is efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify return values, how changes are detected, or what 'impact' means, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 20% (only the 'since' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; for example, 'project' and 'scope' remain unexplained.

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 states it detects code changes and their impact, which is a clear verb-resource combination but lacks specificity (e.g., what kind of changes, how impact is determined). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_code_snippet or search_code.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_code_snippet, trace_path). No mention of prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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