Show Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying output format (status + diff stats + optional diff) but doesn't detail behavioral traits like pagination, output truncation, or how the optional diff is toggled. With annotations handling safety, a 3 is appropriate as it adds some context but not deep behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide usage differentiation. Zero wasted words, no rehashing of schema details, and the alternative-tool list is valuable guidance packed efficiently.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and alternatives. Slightly short of 5 due to not mentioning how path filtering interacts with the output or any nuances about staged vs unstaged review, but overall complete for a review-oriented read tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description implies optional diff behavior but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') with a clear resource ('current workspace changes') and explicitly names the output components (git status, diff stats, optional diff). It also differentiates from siblings by naming alternative tools and instructing to use this instead.

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 states when to use this tool ('when reviewing work') and provides exclusions listing four alternatives (bash git status, bash git diff, git_status, git_diff). This is clear when/alternatives guidance.

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