topos_assess_changeset

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint; description reinforces read-only and adds behavioral details like comparison to baseline_ref, flags for complexity and regression. No contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only note, then usage guidance. Every sentence is substantive with no 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?

Description covers purpose, usage, primary behavior, and return type, but lacks explanation of return structure and does not describe all parameters. Adequate given annotation support, but minor gaps remain.

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 67% (4 of 6 params described). Description adds value by linking baseline_ref to its purpose, but does not describe allow, preferences, gitnexus_dir, or include_security_findings. Adequate but not compensating fully for coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Assess', resource 'multi-file changeset against git baseline', and specifies it rolls per-file verdicts into a project before/after. It contrasts with siblings by focusing on multi-file changesets and mentions 'read-only'.

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 'Use for a module split or any edit spanning several files,' providing clear context. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools imply other use cases.

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