check_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Check' and 'without translating' clearly signal a non-mutating, read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not mention what the tool outputs or any assumptions (e.g., git usage), so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and includes a useful qualifier, making every word earn its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no nested schemas, the description provides adequate context. It conveys the tool's scope and non-translating behavior, though it omits return-value details, which would be helpful but not essential given the low complexity.

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 schema description covers projectRoot 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not elaborate beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the structured info is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('uncommitted changes in default strings.xml files'). The qualifier 'without translating' distinguishes it from the sibling translation tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 'without translating' implies this is a pre-translation check, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_missing_languages or translate_all_modules. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, only an implicit context.

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