Detect changes

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

The description consistently describes a read-only analysis operation ('Map', 'Resolves', 'runs... traversal', 'RESPONSE') with no mention of any side effects. This directly contradicts the annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which imply a destructive, non-read-only operation. Since the description gives no clue about what might be destructive, it is a serious annotation contradiction.

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 dense but entirely purposeful. It starts with a clear purpose statement and then packs essential behavioral details—output shape, exact counts, seed exclusion, and JSON format behavior—without redundant phrasing or filler. Every clause adds value for a tool with this complexity.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the output model, including base/merge_base SHA, changed_files, impacted tree rows, rollup, exact counts, and seed exclusion. However, it omits any mention of the destructive side effect implied by annotations, and it does not explain the required project parameter or the base_branch semantics. Given the annotation mismatch, the description is not fully complete for safe and correct usage.

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 63%, and most parameters (depth, limit, scope, format, direction) are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful detail about format='json' returning the same model and explains the response structure, but it does not clarify remaining parameters like project, since, or base_branch beyond the schema. Overall, it supplements the schema without fully compensating for the 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?

The description opens with 'Map a git diff to its BLAST RADIUS', a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It further explains the process of resolving changed files to symbols and performing a multi-source graph traversal, distinguishing it from sibling graph/search tools.

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?

The description gives clear context on how to use the tool via the scope parameter (files vs impact) and direction parameter (inbound/outbound/both), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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