proj_changed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds value beyond them: the default baseline is uncommitted work, and untracked files are included in the result set. It does not describe result shape, but the output schema exists to carry that.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core definition front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation appended. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, default behavior, untracked-file inclusion, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — and it partially does by explaining that the default corresponds to uncommitted work. However, it never clarifies what forms the 'since' argument accepts (commit SHA, branch, tag), which is the one thing an agent needs to vary it.

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 concrete resource and predicate: units whose source differs from a git revision, plus untracked files. It also names the sibling it is distinct from (proj_vs_runtime), so an agent can separate 'what did I change' from 'is it deployed' without opening schemas.

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 explicit selection context ('what did I change?') and routes to the alternative (proj_vs_runtime) for the deployment question. It stops short of stating when not to use it, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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