change_context

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns history facts and deliberately avoids narrative, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, how empty histories are handled, or whether output is paginated or otherwise capped.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action and a useful one-line non-goal. It loses a point because 'Returns history facts' partially restates the already-listed exact commits, authors, dates, and subjects, adding slight redundancy without new content.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a fuller result shape and invocation context. It does cover the main return concept and a non-goal, but the agent is left guessing about the exact JSON/text shape, whether offsets and limits behave like normal paging, and how a 'symbol' is identified.

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 only 25%, and the description compensates very little. 'Join a symbol to its Git history' clarifies the role of the required symbol parameter, but limit, offset, and format are left entirely to the schema, which provides minimal descriptions for most of them.

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 identifies a specific resource (a symbol) and a specific data source (Git history), and lists the returned items: commits, authors, dates, and subjects. The statement 'does not generate a why narrative' helps set it apart from analysis-oriented tools, though 'join' is an imprecise action verb and the tool name adds little clarity.

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 intended situation is implied: the agent should use this tool when it needs concrete Git history for a symbol. The 'does not generate a why narrative' clause gives a partial exclusion, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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