Code Churn Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Analyze' is consistent. It adds context about interpreting churn as a red flag and the git requirement, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization needs or rate limits. Given annotations, the added value is moderate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence serves a clear role: definition, interpretation, and usage note. No wasted 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?

For a read-only analysis tool with 4 well-described parameters and annotations, the description covers the concept and a key requirement. Lack of output schema is noted, but the description is sufficient to guide usage.

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 mentions the 'repo_path' requirement specifically, but does not add semantics beyond the schema for other parameters. The schema descriptions already cover the parameters adequately.

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 defines the resource ('code churn') and verb ('Analyze'), and provides a concrete example ('500 lines added and 400 deleted') that illustrates the concept. It effectively distinguishes the tool from its many siblings by focusing on churn measurement.

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 when to use the tool (high churn indicates instability) and includes a critical prerequisite: providing 'repo_path' if outside a git repo. However, it does not offer alternatives among sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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