audit_delta

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: uncommitted and untracked files are included, the entire tree is still analyzed, and cross-file facts like dead code remain accurate. This meaningfully explains what the user should expect without contradicting any annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the first states the use case, the second defines the output scope, and the third explains the whole-tree analysis nuance. The most important differentiator is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the scope, inputs, and behavioral nuances sufficiently. There is no output schema, but the description clearly communicates that the tool returns findings scoped to changed files, which is enough for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents git_ref well, including examples like HEAD and origin/main, and coverage is 100%. The description does mention diffing 'versus a git ref' and untracked files, but it adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'judge your own diff, or to review a branch' and precisely defines its output as 'only the findings in files changed versus a git ref.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling audit-style tools by emphasizing the diff-scoped nature, so an agent can tell it apart from tools like audit or dead_code.

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 explicit use cases: reviewing your own diff or reviewing a branch, and explains the benefit of avoiding pre-existing findings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the clear diff-focused context is enough to route an agent appropriately.

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