inspect_actual_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns raw, actual file changes, which transparently describes the operation and output nature. It does not go into performance or error behavior, but for a simple zero-parameter read tool this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action and result are front-loaded, and the usage hint adds value without bloat.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only Git inspection tool, the description covers what the tool returns, the domain, and why it should be used. There is no output schema, but 'raw list' gives enough shape to the return value. Minor details like formatting or execution cost are not essential here.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. With schema coverage at 100% and zero parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('raw list of files ... in Git'), and it enumerates the change types (modified, created, deleted, untracked). It is clearly distinct from a generic 'inspect' or 'status' tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling verify_claimed_actions.

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 phrase 'Use this instead of guessing what changed' gives clear contextual guidance: this is the tool to call when you need ground-truth file changes rather than assumptions. It does not name specific alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, but the intent is clear.

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