get_historical_impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool is read-oriented ('evidence' from git history) and does not require code connection, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what happens if the file has no history, or what 'confidence' means operationally. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the high-level concept.

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 tight, two-sentence summary that packs the core purpose and a key discriminator. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids redundancy. No unnecessary words or elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits parameter semantics, return format, and usage conditions. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation without additional information, especially for parameters like min_support and min_confidence that have defaults but unclear effects.

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%, so parameters are only defined by type and default in the schema. The description does not explain any of the five parameters (repo_path, file, since, min_support, min_confidence). It mentions 'how often' and 'confidence' which loosely relate to min_support and min_confidence, but there is no explicit mapping or semantic explanation. The agent is left to guess parameter meanings, which is a major gap.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('historical impact' from git history) with a precise scope: 'for one file', listing the exact outputs (which files changed alongside, how often, confidence). It also differentiates from static analysis by saying 'No code connection required', so an agent can distinguish it from tools like get_static_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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. It implies a use case via 'No code connection required', but does not name alternatives or state conditions like 'use this when you need historical co-change evidence, use get_static_impact when you need code-level analysis'. An agent would have to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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