churn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that analysis runs over a git window and references a report schema, but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, performance cost, or what the report contains beyond a schema name.

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 compact sentence with the analytical scope front-loaded. The parenthetical schema reference is slightly cryptic but overall the definition is tight and free of filler.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, the definition is under-specified for a tool that produces an analytical report. An agent cannot tell what the report returns, whether the call is safe or expensive, or how the two analyses interrelate.

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 both parameters ('days', 'path') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or boundary detail beyond naming the git window, so the baseline of 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?

The description names two specific analyses ('append-vs-rewrite', 'co-change') and the domain ('git window'), which is more than a tautology and gives an agent a rough sense of the resource. However, it never frames the resource plainly (a churn report) and does not distinguish itself from likely-related siblings such as 'trend', leaving the purpose only implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With 22 sibling tools and neighbors like 'trend' and 'scan', the description offers nothing to help an agent choose this tool over them.

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