Show Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description omits a significant behavioral trait: the tool tracks a 'last_shown' review checkpoint and can suppress unchanged repeated reviews, with mark_reviewed updating that state. This stateful behavior is not disclosed in the description and is not covered by the read-only annotation, so the agent may be surprised when subsequent calls differ.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is embedded efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only summarization tool with schema-documented parameters, and it names the output components. However, the stateful checkpoint behavior is a notable gap: without knowing that repeated calls can be suppressed via 'last_shown' and that mark_reviewed mutates internal state, an agent could misuse the tool or misread its output. With no output schema and 6 parameters, this missing context lowers 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 100%, and every parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how since and mark_reviewed relate), but the schema already covers basic meanings.

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 a specific verb ('Summarize'), a clear resource ('current workspace changes'), and names the exact output composition ('git status, diff stats, and optional diff'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling/alternative tools like git_status and git_diff, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of bash git status, bash git diff, git_status, or git_diff when reviewing work.' This gives both the context ('when reviewing work') and the alternatives to avoid. Clear routing guidance is present, leaving little to inference.

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