changed

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 may initialize .weft/warpline state, but does not explain the implications or whether there are destructive side effects, permission requirements, or other behavioral traits.

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 two sentences and very concise, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds information about what the tool does and its local-only nature. However, it could be slightly more structured.

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, nested objects, output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, pagination (cursor, limit), or how the next actions are structured.

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 input schema has 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage—the description adds no explanation of any parameter (e.g., repo, rev_range, filters). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate 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 for a repo and also provides ready-to-call next actions (reverify/impact). This differentiates it from sibling tools like warpline_change_list which only lists changes.

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 includes 'Local-only; may initialize .weft/warpline state' which gives some context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blast_radius, reverify, or warpline_reverify_worklist_get.

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