status

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses git-diff based detection and parameter behavior changes (removed dead params, ack='all' workaround). Does not mention side effects, auth needs, or granular behavior, but drift detection is understood as read-only.

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?

One line for purpose, then a list of parameters, and a note about removed params. Front-loaded and relatively concise. The parenthetical note adds necessary context but is slightly cryptic.

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?

With 5 parameters and existence of output schema (per context signal), description gives minimal context beyond purpose and parameter options. Could explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results, but output schema likely covers return values.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. Adds meaning for action, ack, reset by listing options and explaining ack='all'. Leaves 'since' and 'help' unexplained. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 detects code↔doc sync drift using git-diff, distinguishing it from show()/brief() for reading content. Specific verb and resource with sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly says not for reading lore/doc content and points to show()/brief() as alternatives. Also mentions action parameter options and ack='all' behavior. Could be more explicit about when to use each action, but provides good context.

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