Show Changes

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool aggregates multiple git views into a single review-oriented result and clarifies the optional diff. It doesn't explicitly surface the mark_reviewed checkpoint side effect, but that is already documented in the parameter schema, so the description is not misleading.

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 with no filler: the core action and output are front-loaded, and the routing guidance is in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with 6 self-describing parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear output sketch and usage context. It could be more explicit about the review-checkpoint behavior, but the parameter docs and annotations cover the remainder.

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?

All 6 parameters are covered at 100% in the schema, so the description needn't repeat details. It adds a high-level mapping to output components like diff stats and optional diff, but no parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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?

Description uses a specific verb (summarize), names the exact resource (current workspace changes), and enumerates output components (git status, diff stats, optional diff). It also explicitly contrasts with sibling git/bash tools, so an agent can distinguish show_changes from them.

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?

States the use case ('when reviewing work') and explicitly says 'Use this instead of bash git status, bash git diff, git_status, or git_diff'. This gives both a positive trigger and named alternatives to avoid.

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