validate_changed_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the validation action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, how failures are reported, or how the approvedProtectedChanges parameter influences behavior.

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 10-word sentence, directly front-loaded with the verb and object. No filler or redundant content.

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 lacks an output schema and annotations, yet the description omits return values, required conditions, and typical execution context. Compared to the rich sibling context, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 single parameter approvedProtectedChanges is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The description adds zero semantic value for parameter usage.

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 a specific action: 'Validate changed files against permissions and secret scan.' It names the resource (changed files) and the specific validation checks (permissions and secret scan), making it distinct from siblings that fetch changes or run broader validations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_all_validation, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. Its usage is only implied by the name and action.

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