validate_code_change

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return type (pass/fail with findings) and lists checks, but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. It neither contradicts nor fully clarifies behavior beyond what's stated.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a bullet list of checks, and ends with return type. It is concise with no redundant sentences, though the bullet format could be streamlined into a single paragraph without losing clarity.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description provides adequate but incomplete guidance. It explains return format and key checks but omits details on how to use 'path' and 'policy', and does not mention output schema (though it exists). For a tool of this complexity, more context on expected usage and outputs is needed.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'diff' as a unified diff and lists what it checks, but does not clarify the 'path' (default '.') or 'policy' (optional, possibly security policy) parameters. Users are left guessing their role and syntax.

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 validates a code diff for security regressions and issues before landing. It lists specific checks (security controls, dangerous patterns, secrets, AI defense), distinguishing it from siblings like security_scan (full repo instead of diff) and quality_check (code quality vs. security).

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?

Implies usage 'before it lands' (pre-merge), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that security_scan might be better for full repositories or that analyze could be used for broader analysis. No exclusions or guidance on choosing between siblings.

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