Assess a changeset against workspace intelligence

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the derived decision semantics, that it never certifies safety, and defines each action value. No contradictions.

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?

Description is structured: purpose first, then bullet-pointed decision semantics, then args, then return format. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded and concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, description fully specifies the return JSON structure and all fields. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly, including limitations (never certifies safe).

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?

Input schema covers 'paths' with basic description. Description adds clarity: 'repo-relative or absolute' and restates bounds. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3; description adds meaningful context (relative/absolute distinction), thus a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'evaluate' against a specific resource (workspace intelligence) and returns a mechanical enforcement decision. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on listing or getting context.

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 (when you have a changeset to assess) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.

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