get_pending_changes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that calling the tool marks changes as reviewed, which is a side effect beyond viewing. It also explains default limit and reset behavior. The only minor omission is not explicitly stating that the operation modifies state, but the disclosure is adequate.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, usage section, and examples. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the critical usage note that this tool must be called before pushing.

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 purpose, usage, parameters, and side effects adequately given the tool's simplicity. It lacks an explicit description of the output format, but since no output schema is provided and the purpose is clear, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient information for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the default limit (1000) and providing examples for pagination, which aids understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 it gets pending changes for review before pushing, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_diff and git_status by indicating it must be called before git_push. The verb 'get' combined with 'pending changes' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: it MUST be called before git_push, marks changes as reviewed, and explains that review status resets after each push. It also includes default behavior and pagination examples, giving clear when-to-use context.

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