get_co_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only' (consistent) and specifies the output format ('Returns JSON: { file, coChanges: ... }'), which provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations. It also notes the git dependency. 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?

The description is only 4 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, prerequisite, usage guidelines, and output format. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, usage context, alternative, and return shape. Missing minor details like error conditions or examples, but overall sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'min_confidence', 'min_count', etc. without elaboration.

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 the verb 'Find' and resource 'files that frequently change together in git history', and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'detect_drift' by noting when to use it instead. The purpose 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 when-to-use ('discover hidden dependencies between files'), when-not-to-use ('For cross-module co-change anomalies use detect_drift instead'), and an alternative tool. It also mentions a prerequisite ('Requires git').

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