detect_changes_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the comparison semantics (working tree vs HEAD vs base..HEAD), which is the key behavioral detail for a diff tool, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what the risk ranking is based on, and any side effects or auth requirements.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the return value and immediately qualified by the two comparison modes. Nothing is wasted and the structure matches the two-case behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description covers both invocation modes of the single optional parameter. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter analysis tool, with only the read-only nature and sibling differentiation left implicit.

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 single parameter 'base' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so adequately by explaining that supplying base switches the comparison range to base..HEAD, giving the parameter clear behavioral meaning beyond its bare name.

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 states a specific output (risk-ranked symbols) and the resource (the current diff), which is clear enough for an agent to understand what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as get_impact_radius or get_review_context, which also analyze changes/impact.

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 parenthetical 'working tree vs HEAD, or base..HEAD when base is given' implicitly tells the agent which mode applies depending on input, which is useful context. But it never says when to prefer this tool over get_impact_radius or get_review_context, nor any prerequisites, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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