get_changed_files

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 two operational modes and the output as a list of file paths. However, it stops short of detailing the exact return format, edge cases (e.g., deleted files, untracked files), or ordering, which would be valuable for full transparency.

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 well-structured with clear headings for two modes and a numbered usage workflow. It includes practical examples of generated descriptions, all of which are relevant to downstream usage. The length is justified given the complexity of the two modes and the integration guidance.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains both input modes, the return value (list of paths), and the intended integration with generate_code_review, including example filename-to-description mappings. This is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the roles of target_branch and from_commit within the two modes, going beyond the schema's individual descriptions. It also implies the relationship between dev_branch and the modes, enriching parameter understanding.

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 it '获取变更文件的路径列表' (gets the list of changed file paths) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes two modes (branch comparison and commit hash) that further clarify the tool's scope, and the workflow differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_code_review and list_branch_authors.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: branch comparison mode requires target_branch, while commit hash mode is for when you don't want to specify a target branch. It also provides a step-by-step usage flow, connecting this tool to generate_code_review, making it clear how it fits into the overall review process.

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