Change Risk Assessment

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it combines multiple signals, returns a score 0-100 with per-file breakdown and actionable recommendations, and requires repo_path under a specific condition. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output/signals, and a critical usage note. Front-loaded and free of 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?

For a read-only analytical tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers when to use it, what signals contribute, what output to expect (score, breakdown, recommendations), and the mandatory repo_path condition. This is complete for its complexity.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the repo_path requirement and ref_range default but does not add new semantic information 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assess the risk profile of uncommitted changes or a specific commit range.' It also names the unique combination of signals (file hotspot history, change size, author familiarity, etc.) that distinguishes this tool from siblings like hotspots or branch_risk.

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 use case is clearly stated: assessing uncommitted changes or a commit range. It also gives a conditional usage guideline for repo_path when the server is not in a git repo. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the context is clear.

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