get_impact_from_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool can use git to discover changed files, but it does not disclose what 'impact analysis' outputs, whether there are side effects, prerequisites like an initialized git repository, or failure modes. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler or redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded and the additional mode detail is directly useful.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain what the returned impact analysis looks like, how the git discovery mode behaves across refs, or what happens when neither diff nor a valid git context is available.

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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by clarifying that either 'diff' or git-based discovery can be used, but it does not materially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('aggregates') and a clear resource ('impact analysis across a diff or Git changeset'), making the tool's core function understandable. It is not a tautology and is distinct enough by its diff focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling get_impact.

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 implies usage by describing two invocation modes: providing a diff string or letting git discover changed files. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, but the diff-oriented framing gives reasonable contextual guidance.

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