inspect_mcdev_git_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: read-only, local snapshot only, unknown remote freshness/BU sync, no auth/log/artifact/commit-content reads, no branch changes or execution, and a concurrency/atomicity warning. These are concrete operational limits an agent needs before calling.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core operation, and subsequent clauses are dense but purposeful for a high-risk inspection tool. Some negation-heavy fragments make it read like a checklist, but there is little outright waste.

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?

The description is rich on scope, exclusions, and operational limits, which is important given no annotations. However, with no output schema, it never explains what the comparison returns—what metadata, containment result, or shape an agent should expect—so it is not fully complete for a tool whose output is central.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the description still adds value by explaining declaredEdge semantics—it assesses only exact-source-commit containment and preserves source-to-target direction even for back-promotion. That is meaningful beyond the enum and required params.

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 'Read-only Git metadata comparison of two explicit refs,' a specific verb and resource, and immediately scopes it away from promotion policy or execution readiness. The final clause distinguishes it from inspect_mcdev_project auth checks and implies separation from git policy, so an agent can route correctly.

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 says what it is not for ('not promotion policy or execution readiness') and separates it from inspect_mcdev_project auth protection checks, giving useful when-not context. It stops short of naming inspect_mcdev_git_policy as the alternative for policy checks and does not give a positive 'use this when...' trigger beyond the ref-comparison scope.

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