evaluate_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns markdown-formatted guidance and gives mandatory next actions. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is typical for a consultative tool. Missing safety/permission context.

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 well-structured with clear sections using bullet points and bold text. It front-loads the purpose and key workflow steps. While thorough, it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrases, but overall it's efficient.

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 the complexity of an evaluation tool with multiple decision factors and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and the subsequent workflow. It could benefit from a brief example of the output format, but it sufficiently covers the agent's needs.

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%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or examples for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Hence, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 that the tool provides comprehensive guidance for evaluating whether code changes require feature flags. It lists specific outputs (workflow, patterns, criteria, decision tree) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_flag or wrap_change by focusing on evaluation and then directing to them.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (starting a feature, unsure about flag need, need rollout guidance, choosing flag type) and includes a mandatory workflow instructing subsequent tool calls. However, it does not mention when not to use it, such as when a flag is already confirmed unnecessary.

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