osnova_settle

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world traits. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: output truncation under 4096 code units with exact omission counts, cache indexing of baseRef trees, diff computation when none is given, and the limitation that a diff alone cannot show deleted symbols.

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 three dense sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and caveats. Every sentence contributes, though the nested clauses make it slightly harder to parse than ideal.

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 complex change-impact tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (symbols and dependents, with omission counts), when to use it, how arguments behave, and key limitations. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining context is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: no-argument behavior settles uncommitted changes against HEAD, diff alone compares only against the current index, and baseRef indexes a commit tree under the cache without checkout.

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 a specific analysis: given a git diff, it computes touched symbols and indexed dependents at a depth, with output limits. It distinguishes itself from a plain diff by explaining index-based comparison, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like osnova_tests or osnova_unreferenced.

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?

Usage is explicit: 'Use once after editing, before declaring done, to find callers the tests do not cover,' and no-argument behavior is defined. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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