get_changed_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the worktree-vs-ref distinction but omits important behavior: whether results are truncated at max_files/max_symbols_per_file and what happens when limits are hit. Adequate but thin given the low annotation burden.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core concept front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that some behavioral context is lost rather than merely compressed.

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 no output schema, the description should carry more about the returned shape and truncation behavior implied by the max_files/max_symbols_per_file defaults. Annotations cover safety, but the agent still lacks enough to predict results for a 4-parameter analysis 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description only echoes the ref semantics ('HEAD vs ref') and clarifies nothing about max_files or max_symbols_per_file truncation, so it lands at the baseline for a fully-covered 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Symbol-level summary of ... changes') and even names the two comparison scopes (worktree, HEAD vs ref). The 'symbol-level' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from file-level siblings like get_git_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over get_git_status, build_commit_summary, get_change_impact, or find_hotspots, all of which touch change analysis. The parenthetical 'or HEAD vs ref' hints at a mode but doesn't state when each is appropriate.

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