explain_change

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

The description discloses that it uses Gemini Pro for synthesis, which implies external AI dependency, but it doesn't address potential failure modes, performance, or read-only nature. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is only moderately transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that packs significant information (cross-referencing, output format, AI model) without any fluff. Every word contributes to 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of 'Markdown explanation' is helpful but vague. Missing details about the format, potential latency due to AI, and error cases. While adequate for a simple tool, it could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. It states 'short or full' for commit_sha and 'optional' for repo, matching the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal value.

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 states the tool's specific action: cross-referencing a git commit diff with linked Decision/Problem nodes and returning a grounded Markdown explanation. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools, which do not perform this function.

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?

The description implies usage when a commit explanation linked to context is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given the number of sibling tools, more guidance would help.

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