Build release evidence pack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds that it combines inputs into an artifact but does not explain the return format or whether any side effects occur beyond reading. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a score of 3 reflects the minimal additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and outcome, with no redundant phrases.

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 task is moderately complex (combining two data sources), but the description gives only a high-level outcome without specifying the return structure. Since there is no output schema and no mention of output format, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All three parameters (baseRef, reportFiles, repositoryRoot) have schema descriptions with 100% coverage. The description's reference to 'Git changes' and 'JUnit reports' loosely maps to parameters but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Combine') and identifies both source resources ('Git changes' and 'JUnit reports') and the output components ('risk decision, findings, and rollback checklist'), making the purpose clear. It also distinguishes from siblings by describing a composite operation rather than single-source inspection.

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 the tool is appropriate when both Git changes and JUnit reports are needed together, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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