Summarize changes

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by stating the tool is read-only and uses the current git diff when none is supplied. It also lists what the summary contains (e.g., checks performed, known limitations), which helps set expectations. This enriches the readOnlyHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the output components, the second clarifies the default diff behavior and read-only nature. Zero wasted words.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the summary includes, which it does by listing the components. It also clarifies the fallback diff behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about how checkResults factors in, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 produces a summary of changes with specific components (user-facing summary, technical summary, conventional-commit message, checks, limitations). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_patch or run_project_checks.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: summarizing changes. It also notes the fallback behavior of using the current git diff when none is supplied. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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