review_workspace_changes

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

The description adds behavioral nuance beyond the readOnlyHint: it works specifically on uncommitted changes (git diff HEAD), is limited to Windows/local mode, and warns against reading .xml/.xpp files if the diff appears truncated. These operational details are not covered by annotations and help the agent understand edge cases.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, exclusions, and a critical behavioral warning. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by alternatives and a caveat, with no wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and a specific failure scenario. The lack of an output schema is acceptable as the review output is self-explanatory from the stated purpose.

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?

The schema already fully describes directoryPath with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to restate it. The description reinforces the parameter's role in the tool's context but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as a code review for uncommitted X++ changes (git diff HEAD), specifying BP violations, missing labels, and CoC patterns. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like verify_d365fo_project and get_object_info.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use the tool (verifying writes) and names the alternative tools (verify_d365fo_project + get_object_info). Additionally, it specifies 'Windows/local mode only' and gives guidance for truncated diffs, making usage context and exclusions clear.

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