get_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what each change type will look like: 'Replace changes carry unified diffs; inserts/deletes/comments show their content.' This gives the agent a concrete expectation of the output. It does not mention read-only status or side effects, but the verb 'review' and the separation from apply/discard tools imply a non-mutating operation. The description adds real value beyond just 'get changes'.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and supporting detail (diff types, selective apply) in the second. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence earns its place. It is exceptionally efficient.

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 output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's scope, the nature of the diffs, and how to proceed with apply_changes. The only missing piece is clarification of the 'path' parameter, but that is already addressed under parameter semantics. The tool is a straightforward review step in a larger workflow, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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 input schema has only one required parameter, 'path', and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'path' at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name and context. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool, as the description should clarify what path refers to (e.g., document, workspace).

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Review all staged changes with diffs before committing.' It specifies the scope ('all staged changes'), what's included (diffs), and the context (before committing). This distinguishes it from apply_changes (which applies) and discard_changes (which discards), and the mention of replace, inserts, deletes, and comments adds specificity beyond a generic 'get changes'.

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 context: 'before committing' indicates this is a review step, and 'Apply selectively with apply_changes(change_ids=[...])' explicitly names the alternative for the next action. It does not list when not to use or compare against other siblings, but the flow from review to apply is clearly sketched, providing adequate guidance.

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