cochange_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses git history, analyzes recent commits controlled by n_commits, and outputs results in text or JSON. It does not mention performance or mutation (it's read-only), but the behavior is adequately described.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief explanation, and a bullet-like list of parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 an output schema, the description appropriately avoids explaining return values. It covers the tool's concept and most parameters. It is complete enough for effective use, though the missing repo_path parameter reduces completeness slightly.

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 compensate. It explains file_path (with example), n_commits (default 200), and output_format (text/json). However, it completely omits the repo_path parameter, leaving that undocumented. This gap reduces the score.

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 the tool finds files that historically co-change with a given file (logical coupling). It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('co-change' and 'context') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dependencies' by focusing on historical co-change patterns.

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 concrete usage advice: 'useful for discovering hidden dependencies' with an example condition. While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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