get_changed_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: in plain directories, files are listed with an 'added' status. This goes beyond a simple 'list files' statement. Lacks details on side effects or return format, but for a read-only listing tool this is a moderate 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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. The opening verb is direct, and the conditional clause adds critical differentiation without bloat.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves important operational gaps: what counts as a 'source file', whether the list is recursive, and what the default 'type' is when omitted for git repos. It covers the two main modes but is not sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in all cases.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds contextual nuance (e.g., that 'type' only matters for git repos and that plain directories always list as 'added'), but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('List'), resource ('files'), and scope ('changed files' in git, 'all source files as added' in plain directories). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_diff (which likely returns diffs) without needing to name them.

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?

Provides context that the tool behaves differently for git repos versus plain directories, implying when it is useful. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., get_diff, review_changes) or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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