codegraph_detect_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the tool's behavior. It explicitly describes the internal steps (runs git diff, finds symbols, traces callers) and the return value (affected symbols + risk classification). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the steps imply a read-only analysis.

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 two concise sentences that clearly outline the tool's purpose, method, and output. No redundant or vague language is present.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing codegraph index) or potential limitations, but for a tool that returns analysis results, this is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

The schema already includes descriptions for all three parameters, covering their purpose (isolation, traversal depth, repository path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: detecting uncommitted git changes and mapping them to affected symbols with blast radius. It is distinct from sibling tools like codegraph_impact or codegraph_callers by focusing on uncommitted changes.

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 context (uncommitted changes) by mentioning 'git diff --name-only' and tracing callers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over codegraph_impact or other impact-analysis tools.

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