pending

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

Describes the core behavior: diffing resolved call edges, reporting additions/removals, and folding changes into the graph. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers the main action but omits details like permissions or error conditions.

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?

Concise but dense with technical terms; each sentence adds meaningful context. The key idea is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in explaining the diff process but overall efficient.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose and behavior well but misses critical context: no description of the root parameter, no output schema info, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of a stored graph). Incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The sole parameter (root, default '.') is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any semantic value for the parameter, leaving the agent uninformed about its purpose or usage.

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?

Description clearly defines the tool as detecting 'relationship drift from UNCOMMITTED edits' and explains its unique ability to catch re-pointed calls that name diffs miss. The verb 'diff' and resource 'call edges' are specific and distinct from sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Run after an edit to prove you didn't silently sever a relationship') and what it detects. However, it does not compare directly with siblings (stats, scope, hooks) or state when not to use.

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