get_git_churn

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description confirms read-only and adds return structure details and TOON encoding tip. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, return shape, and output format tip. Every sentence is essential and well-structured, no 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?

Combined with schema and annotations, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, prerequisites, alternative, read-only, return format, and output options. Minor gap: no definition of 'frequency' or 'volatility', but domain knowledge is assumed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds extra guidance on output_format (explaining TOON and comparing to json/markdown), which provides practical usage insight beyond the enum list.

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 tool computes per-file git churn with specific metrics (commits, unique authors, frequency, volatility). It explicitly differentiates from sibling get_risk_hotspots, making purpose 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 specifies the use case ('identify frequently-changed files'), requires git, and names an alternative for combined analysis. While it doesn't exhaustively list when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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