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 of behavioral disclosure. It says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention any dependencies (e.g., git installed), error conditions, or whether the output is limited to file names versus full paths. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It mentions the optional 'against' parameter in the parenthetical and does not waste words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., file paths, relative/absolute). It specifies '.py files' and the set (changed), but does not describe the output content or structure. For a simple list tool this might be adequate, but the lack of any return details leaves a gap that could cause incorrect agent expectations.

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 0% since neither parameter has a description in the schema. The description only indirectly references 'against a given ref' (mapping to 'against'), but says nothing about 'repo_path', which is required. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without explicit parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb (List), a specific resource (the .py files currently changed in the repo), and a scope that distinguishes it from analytical siblings. The parenthetical 'uncommitted, or against a given ref' further clarifies the operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 provides context on when to use it (to get currently changed files) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like analyze_current_change or explain_affected_file. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer an alternative, though the distinct purpose is inferable from the naming and phrase 'currently changed'.

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