Inspect git changes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the exact output shape (per-file status and churn, numbered changes with previews) and defining what a 'change' is, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It omits pagination and any assumptions about repo state, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what it lists, and the second sentence covers the cross-tool referencing semantics. Dense but every clause earns its place; no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately (files, status, churn, numbered changes, previews). It also explains how the change numbers interoperate with diff slides, which is the key integration detail. Minor gaps remain around edge cases and pagination.

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 100%, so all five parameters (base, head, repo, paths, context) are already documented in the schema, including merge-base behavior and default context. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (changed files and their numbered changes), and unpacks the domain terms with parentheticals (status, churn, contiguous blocks of added/removed/re-indented lines). Clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling such as draft_deck_from_git.

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 gives a genuine usage pointer for the output — change numbers match diff slides with a `git` source and can be assigned via steps[].changes — which implies this feeds the slide-authoring workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus sibling tools like draft_deck_from_git; the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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