get_changed_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states a read operation but does not explain what 'changed files' means, whether it includes staged/unstaged changes, or what the output format will be. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single vague sentence does not earn high marks for structure because it lacks substance and fails to inform the agent effectively.

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?

Given the absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description must provide context about what changed files are returned (e.g., relative to what baseline, in what format). It does not, leaving the agent to guess among siblings like get_git_diff and get_git_status.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters to explain, this is acceptable and does not deduct.

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 'Return changed files' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It provides no scope, criteria, or distinction from sibling tools like get_git_diff or get_git_status, making it vague and uninformative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_git_diff, get_git_status, or validate_changed_files. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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