get_current_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'git diff' (uncommitted changes), implying a non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't describe output format, which are safe assumptions for a read-only diff operation. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action then a use-case clause. Efficient and no wasted words, though it doesn't enumerate any nuances like git diff specifics.

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 is simple (1 param, enums, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose and read-only nature. Sibling tools handle validation/analysis distinctly. Adequate and complete enough for this low-complexity tool.

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% with the repository parameter documented with enum values (M365ABAC, RMS, MIP) and default. The description reinforces that M365ABAC is the default repo. With full coverage and one simple enum param, the parameter is well-specified; description adds marginal but useful context about the default.

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?

Clear description: 'Get current uncommitted changes from the M365ABAC repository using git diff. Useful for validating work-in-progress code.' Specific verb (get), resource (uncommitted changes from repo), and method (git diff). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings which are about validation/analysis/generation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives clear context ('validating work-in-progress code') and the repository param is documented with enum values in the schema. It implies the use case (WIP code validation) but doesn't explicitly contrast with validate_abac_changes or analyze_cross_component_impact, though the verbs naturally differ.

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