get_rename_aware_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of --find-renames and --ignore-all-space, which explains behavior beyond the name. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, which would be useful given the lack of annotations.

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 three sentences: a comparison, a technical detail sentence, and a usage directive. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally clarify what the tool returns. It implies the return matches get_affected_tests_by_branch ('Like...'), which supports inference, but does not explicitly state the output. The core functionality and usage context are well covered, making this only a minor gap.

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 has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; the similarity_threshold is already well-documented in the schema.

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 computes affected tests while handling renamed and moved files, distinguishing it from the sibling get_affected_tests_by_branch. It names the exact comparison and the specific behavior that sets it apart (rename/move handling).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use instead of get_affected_tests_by_branch when the branch contains refactors or file moves,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative tool. This directly answers the selection problem.

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