axon_pro_detect_changes

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 implies a read-only analysis that returns affected symbols, but says nothing about repository prerequisites, whether the diff must be staged/unstaged, cost, or failure modes for a multi-sibling static-analysis tool.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence largely restates the first's implication of impact analysis.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what the 'affected symbols' result actually looks like, its granularity, and any prerequisites. That leaves an agent unable to predict the response shape or preconditions.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'diff'. The description adds no format constraints (whole git diff vs hunks) beyond the schema's own text, 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 and resource: 'Analyse code changes in a diff and find affected symbols.' An agent knows it takes a diff and returns impacted symbols, though it never contrasts itself with the closely related sibling axon_pro_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?

'Helps understand the impact of recent modifications' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of how it differs from axon_pro_impact or axon_pro_impact_on_tests, which an agent must otherwise guess.

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