explain_code_changes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, only mentioning 'via DevMemory' without explaining what that entails (e.g., external service calls, data access, or limitations).

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant wording. The parenthetical 'DevMemory(데브메모리)' is slightly unnecessary but does not detract from conciseness.

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?

With 7 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently contextual. It doesn't explain how parameters should be combined (e.g., repoUrl vs repoPath, date vs since), nor what the output representation looks like. The schema partially covers parameter meaning but not overall usage context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't clarify which parameters to use together or provide any details beyond the schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('explains') and concrete details (which file, function, and lines changed, plus their purpose). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'summarize_commit', which may overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only outlines what the tool does, not when it should be invoked, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling context.

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