Lists the reads and checks required for all files changed on a branch since a base ref, so agents can run the listed checks before finishing.
The same read list for every file changed on this branch since the base (default origin/main, else main). Call it before finishing, then run the checks it lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | git ref to compare against |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the useful default base behavior and that the result lists checks to run, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it can fail outside a git branch context, or any permission/rate-limit expectations.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the scope and then gives the required follow-up action, making it easy to scan.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the scoped result, the default base behavior, and the intended lifecycle use before finishing. It could be stronger by clarifying the return shape or the alternatives, but the essentials are present.
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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying the default base resolution: origin/main first, then main. That is directly relevant to how the agent should reason about the optional base parameter.
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 states a concrete scope: it returns the read list for every file changed on the branch since a base ref. It is clearly distinguished from the broader sibling read_list by the 'changed on this branch since the base' scoping, though the phrase 'same read list' is slightly indirect rather than a direct verb-resource statement.
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?
It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Call it before finishing, then run the checks it lists.' That tells the agent both when to invoke it and what to do with the result. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare against read_list or check_map.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.