Change Risk Assessment

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns with a non-destructive, analytical tool. Description adds value by detailing combined signals and return format (score, per-file breakdown, recommendations). No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a note. Front-loaded with main purpose and key details. No fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (score, breakdown, recommendations). Covers essential context for usage, including default behavior and prerequisite for repo_path.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context: default behavior (uncommitted changes) and condition for repo_path (required if not in git repo). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it assesses risk profile of uncommitted changes or a commit range. The verb 'assess' and resource 'risk profile' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hotspots or churn, which may overlap in purpose.

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?

Provides a conditional usage note about repo_path when server is not in a git repo. But it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to prefer risk_assessment over hotspots or branch_risk.

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