Analyze git changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key scoping behavior — branch vs base plus uncommitted — and the classification outcome, which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not mention side effects, failure behavior, or whether any filesystem or repository state is modified.

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?

One tight sentence with the main verb and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical scope adds essential detail without wasted words.

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?

This tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple siblings, but the description gives only a high-level behavior. It does not explain the mode parameter's workspace scanning behavior, default base handling, prerequisites like a git repository, or what the classification result looks like.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by explaining the diff source ('branch vs base' maps to base, 'uncommitted' maps to includeUncommitted). It does not clarify cwd, includeUntracked, or mode beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and resource: parsing a git diff and classifying files into a plugin package and file kind. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like list_layers, get_coverage, and generate_test_plan, which perform different operations.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. It implies usage from the verb 'parse', but does not say when this is the right choice or when another tool like discover_packages should be preferred.

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