preview_git_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond structured fields — the diff is JSON-based, so comma-shift reordering won't produce false positives — but it says nothing about what happens with an invalid/missing ref, whether uncommitted staged vs unstaged changes are included, or whether the operation is purely read-only (only implied by 'Preview').

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the disambiguating mechanism in a tight parenthetical. No filler, nothing truncated or buried.

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 two-optional-parameter, enum-constrained, defaulted tool this is nearly sufficient — the diff semantics are clear and the schema covers the inputs. The main gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could have sketched the shape of the result (e.g., key paths grouped by added/modified/deleted) rather than leaving it to inference.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions plus a default and an enum, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., accepted ref formats) beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('translation keys added, modified, or deleted between a git ref and the working tree'), which is far more precise than the sibling preview_changes. The git-ref scope implicitly separates it from the non-git preview sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 git-diff framing implies when to reach for it (checking uncommitted translation changes before syncing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against preview_changes/sync_translations. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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