Changed-file impact

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by enumerating the non-success outcomes ('no_diff', 'no_code_changes', 'missing_base_ref', 'not_a_git_repo') and promising guidance rather than fabricated impact. It also discloses the analytical ceiling (basic changed-file impact only), which is exactly the kind of honesty an agent needs to avoid over-trusting results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's identity and gating condition, and every sentence carries information rather than filler. The middle sentence is dense with parentheticals and slash-separated status codes, which costs a little readability but not correctness.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (changed set vs base ref plus affected behaviors/tests) and what the failure statuses are. Combined with the annotation-confirmed read-only nature, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions including defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the semantics of base_ref ('vs a base git ref') but adds no format, resolution, or workspace-scoping detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Summarizes what changed vs a base git ref and which local graph behaviors/tests are affected') and immediately scopes itself to DIFF/PR review. It also delimits what it is not ('no deep route/API shape analysis'), so an agent can distinguish it from graph-scoring or test-generation siblings without opening the schema.

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 the selection condition ('only for real code-review situations') and names the alternative for the other case ('For baseline (no-PR) test opportunities use orangepro_find_test_gaps'). Prerequisites (git repo, real diff) are front-loaded, so the agent knows when the call is valid at all.

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