detect_changed_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the use of git diff, default ref range, constraints on refs (allowlist rules, 200 chars), timeout (10s), and output cap (1MB). This gives an agent sufficient understanding of the tool's behavior beyond just the schema.

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 highly concise with three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently provides usage details and constraints 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 there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the return format (e.g., list of filenames with status codes). However, it does mention 'detect changed files' and the output cap, leaving some ambiguity but still functional. Additional detail on output would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the use of base_ref and staged_only, but does not cover working_tree or with_stats. workspace_root is required but not described. The description adds partial value, compensating somewhat for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 detects changed files in a git workspace using 'git diff --name-status'. It is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes this tool from siblings, which are unrelated to git diff.

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 explains the default behavior (HEAD~1..HEAD) and how to customize using base_ref or staged_only. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, it provides clear context and constraints (allowlisted refs, timeout, output cap), guiding appropriate usage.

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