cos_graph_detect_changes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details: empty files produce an empty envelope, analyze_downstream walks transitive blast radius, and scope is 'Label only' with allowed values. However, 'Label only' is ambiguous and the effect of scope on results is not explained, so transparency is only partially enhanced.

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 highly efficient: one front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of annotation or schema information. This is a model of concise tool documentation.

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 covers all three parameters, the empty-input edge case, and the core analysis dimensions (symbols, downstream tasks, risk level). Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable. Minor gaps remain around the meaning of 'scope' and how risk level is determined, but overall the description is adequate for a three-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains files as comma-separated paths with empty-input behavior, lists valid scope labels, and describes analyze_downstream as transitive blast-radius traversal. The scope explanation is limited to 'Label only' plus allowed values without defining what each scope means, preventing a perfect score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map changed files to affected symbols + downstream tasks + risk level.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose as change-impact analysis. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cos_graph_diff or cos_graph_impact, but the unique output dimensions (downstream tasks, risk level) make the purpose clear enough.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'changed files' and the annotation title 'Graph Pre-Commit Self-Review,' and the Args block provides practical input guidance. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of sibling graph tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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