get_changed_symbols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral details: requires git, auto-detects main/master base, and explains output_format effects on token cost. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No fluff, covers purpose, usage, behavior, output, and a tip.

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, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides sufficient context: return format (JSON with changes and total), required git, auto-detection, alternative tool, and output format options. It leaves little ambiguity.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining auto-detection of 'since', the purpose of 'output_format' (TOON encoding for token savings), and the return structure. This goes beyond the schema.

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 maps a git diff to affected symbols (functions, classes, methods) and is intended for PR review. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool compare_branches by specifying a different use case.

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 'Use for PR review' and directs to compare_branches for full branch comparison with risk assessment. Also mentions auto-detection of base branch when 'since' is omitted, providing clear context.

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