magento_analyze_diff

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes output behavior (risk scoring, change classification) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive, nor cover authentication or rate limits. Lack of annotations makes the description partially adequate but not fully transparent.

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 with no filler. Every clause adds value, clearly conveying purpose and usage.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It mentions outputs (risk scoring, classification, impact) but lacks detail on how results are presented (e.g., JSON, report). Given the tool's complexity, more completeness would help.

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% with both parameters described. The description restates 'staged changes or specific commits' which maps directly to the parameters but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool analyzes git diffs for risk scoring, change classification, and per-file impact analysis, and specifies it works on commits or staged changes. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like magento_search or magento_describe.

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 mentions 'Useful for code review,' providing context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. It gives a clear usage scenario without differentiating from siblings like magento_impact_analysis.

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