uci_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It uses the non-destructive verb 'Show' and clarifies 'uncommitted', implying read-only access to a pending state. However, it does not detail whether root is required, how changes are formatted, or any other behavioral nuances.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The meaning of 'pending' and its distinction from committed state is clear, though some output format details could be added. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'config' parameter with a clear description ('Config name to check (omit for all configs)'). The tool description itself does not supplement parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and resource 'pending (uncommitted) UCI changes', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like uci_commit, uci_revert, and uci_show. The term 'uncommitted' adds precise scope.

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 implies usage when wanting to inspect uncommitted UCI changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uci_show or uci_commit. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.

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