Detect which capabilities are affected by recent code changes so memory can be revalidated per branch. Checks a chosen number of commits back to flag drifted areas.
Detect which capabilities may be affected by recent code changes — useful when memory needs branch-aware revalidation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sinceCommits | No | How many commits back to check (default: 1, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Detect' implies a read, but it never states whether this is read-only, whether revalidation mutates memory state, what the cost/scope is, or what the response looks like — all critical for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The trailing '— useful when...' clause is somewhat jargon-heavy but does add a usage hint rather than padding.
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 one-parameter detection tool with a well-documented schema, the definition is largely sufficient. But with no output schema, the description should hint at what 'affected capabilities' results look like, and it doesn't, leaving the return shape opaque.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with type, default, and max. The description adds nothing about sinceCommits, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb (detect) and resource (capabilities affected by recent code changes), which is more than a name restatement. However, it doesn't distinguish this from any sibling tool, and 'capabilities' is left undefined, so an agent can't fully tell what domain it operates in.
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?
'useful when memory needs branch-aware revalidation' gives an implied usage context but no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the siblings. The agent must infer the trigger condition from vague jargon.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.