get_changed_symbols

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose the output format (e.g., list of symbols, file counts), performance considerations, or any side effects. The phrase 'symbol-level summary' is ambiguous; an agent might not know what to expect.

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, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the lack of structure (e.g., no separate paragraphs for usage or output) reduces clarity.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should elaborate on what 'symbol-level summary' means and the nature of the output. It does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it, especially without examples or return structure.

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 each parameter has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond clarifying the comparison base (worktree vs ref). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameters.

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 indicates it provides a symbol-level summary of worktree changes or changes against a ref. The verb 'get' and resource 'changed symbols' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like get_git_status (which is file-level) and build_commit_summary (which is commit-level), though not 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for understanding symbol-level changes but does not exclude cases better served by other tools like detect_breaking_changes or get_change_impact.

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