analyze_api_surface_mutation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the classification logic and what triggers each category, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or specify prerequisites like a git repository or tsconfig.json, despite the schema mentioning these.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and immediately followed by the intended use case. No filler words; every clause contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately communicates the possible return values by naming the two classification categories and their meanings. It also covers the main use case. It could be improved by mentioning error cases (e.g., file not under git), but for a simple analysis tool this is fairly complete.

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% (both file_path and project_root have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely references 'file' and 'HEAD version' without clarifying parameter usage.

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: comparing a file against its HEAD version and classifying the change into two specific categories. It lists concrete examples of what constitutes each category, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like 'differentiate_type_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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use to answer: is this PR a breaking change or a safe refactor?' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would push it to a 5.

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