search_changed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the ranking mechanism (within changed files only via Qdrant payload filter) and that for large change sets (>500 files) it falls back to post-filtering. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but the provided details are substantial.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and bullet points for parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, explaining behavior and parameter semantics without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and behavioral details well. An output schema exists, so the brief 'Returns' line is acceptable. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., git repository existence) or error handling, which are not addressed.

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% (parameters have no descriptions in schema), but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: query, path, since, limit, output_format. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, compensating fully for the lack of 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 'Search only in files that have changed since a given commit or time,' specifying the verb 'search', the resource 'files that have changed', and the constraint 'since a given commit or time'. This effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'code_search' (general search) and 'search_multiple' (multiple queries).

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 implies when to use the tool (searching changed files) and provides example formats for the 'since' parameter (e.g., 'HEAD~10', '3.days.ago'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to siblings, though the context suggests alternatives like 'code_search' for general searches.

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