topos_assess_changeset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds extra behavioral context: 'Each file is compared to baseline_ref (new files have no baseline)' and mentions specific flags like 'complexity_relocated_within_file' and 'project_regression'. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the comparison behavior and result flags, though it omits details on security findings or authorization.

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 three sentences, tightly packed with essential information: purpose, usage, key behavior, flags, and return type. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence serves a distinct role. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by practical guidance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested preferences object, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview: it explains the baseline comparison, flags, and return type. It lacks details on some parameters (e.g., `include_security_findings`) and the exact shape of `ChangesetResult`, but the schema covers most parameter semantics. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool and what to expect at a high level.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema carries most parameter info. The description enhances `baseline_ref` by explaining that each file is compared to it and noting that new files have no baseline. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's 'Git baseline ref each file is compared against.' However, it does not clarify undocumented parameters like `gitnexus_dir` or `include_security_findings`, but the description's contribution is still valuable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Assess a multi-file changeset against a git baseline and roll the per-file verdicts into a project before/after.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single files, improvements, or snapshots. The mention of 'multi-file changeset' and 'project before/after' adds a unique scope not seen in other tool names.

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 usage context: 'Use for a module split or any edit spanning several files.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for single-file assessments. The guidance is clear enough for basic selection but lacks exclusionary or comparative notes.

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