foundation_scan_changes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope of scanning multiple sources but provides no additional behavioral details such as output format, computation cost, or prerequisites beyond what annotations cover.

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 efficiently lists the scan targets and the overall goal. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 scans multiple complex sources and produces 'combined boundary signals,' yet the description does not explain what the output looks like, how signals are defined, or when this should be used relative to sibling tools. The complexity demands more informational context.

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 is described, but base_ref has no description. The tool description does not mention either parameter or clarify how base_ref affects the scan, failing to compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: scanning Git changes, dependencies, migrations, environment names, and structure. It states the goal of combining boundary signals, which distinguishes it from generic analysis tools, though 'boundary signals' could be more specific.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like foundation_analyze_project or foundation_doctor, so the agent has no context for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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