foundation_assess_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Does not commit changes' reiterates that. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: 'reanalyze only affected capabilities', indicating a scoped analysis rather than a full reanalysis. However, it does not disclose return format, error conditions, or prerequisites like needing a committed state, so the additional context is moderate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first says what it does, the second clarifies a key non-behavior. No redundant or vague wording.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description gives enough to invoke the tool: it knows what it does, what it affects, and that it doesn't commit. However, it lacks any mention of return values or next steps after the assessment, which an agent would need to interpret the result. A brief note on output would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 50%: project_root has a description, but new_requirement does not. The description mentions 'new requirement' and 'committed Foundation state', which gives some meaning to new_requirement, but it does not clarify parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is below 80%, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit about the 'new_requirement' content and how it relates to project_root.

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 compares a new requirement with committed Foundation state and reanalyzes only affected capabilities. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like foundation_commit (which commits) and foundation_analyze_project (which likely analyzes the whole project). The explicit note 'Does not commit changes' further disambiguates its purpose.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a new requirement and want to assess its impact without committing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Does not commit changes' caveat implicitly tells the agent not to use this for committing. A small gap is that it doesn't mention when to prefer this over foundation_scan_changes or foundation_analyze_project.

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