Inspect release changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'without changing the repository', which reinforces but does not substantially extend the annotations. It does not disclose additional behavior beyond the diff inspection and risk classification, so the added informational value over the structured annotations is limited.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, scope, and side-effect profile. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with two well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior and purpose. It does not describe the return format, but the phrase 'classify release risk' provides a clear expectation, and the absence of an output schema lowers the burden on the description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('repositoryRoot' and 'baseRef'), each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names a concrete resource ('local Git diff'), while also stating the higher-level purpose ('classify release risk'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like summarize_test_reports and build_release_evidence_pack, which focus on different operations.

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 establishes a clear usage context: inspecting a local Git diff to assess release risk, with the added safety note that it makes no changes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to choose it over the siblings.

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