changed

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates by disclosing that it is local-only and may initialize state. However, it does not detail other behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects beyond initialization, or response format. More transparency is needed given the lack of annotations.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters, output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, output structure, and comprehensive behavior. It does not fully inform an AI agent about how to use the tool effectively.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. It fails to add semantic meaning beyond parameter names. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not.

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 lists changed entities and retrieves next actions for reverify/impact. It identifies the resource (changed entities for an ingested repo) and the action (list and get next actions). It hints at differentiation from siblings like 'heddle_change_list' by mentioning 'ready-to-call reverify/impact next actions', but could be more explicit.

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 description provides context ('Local-only; may initialize .weft/heddle state') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'heddle_reverify_worklist_get' or 'reverify'. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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