Review what the agent changed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool is built from before-snapshots and produces a diff, which suggests read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose any behavioral traits.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides origin. Every word earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its data source, and its purpose. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter (cwd). The description adds context beyond schema by explaining the diff is built from walkback's own before-snapshots, enhancing understanding.

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 the tool provides a PR-style diff of every file changed since the last checkpoint, using before-snapshots. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes from siblings like walkback_checkpoint or walkback_log.

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 implies usage (reviewing changes) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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