code_quality_analyze_git_changes

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that deleted files are excluded, uses unified backend strategy, and mentions options. However, it does not describe what the analysis entails (e.g., violations, metrics) or potential side effects.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the core operation, exclusions, and reference to sibling tool options. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Adequately explains input collection but lacks details about output schema (though it exists), parameter behavior for most fields, and what 'analyze' produces. Sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for nuanced use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description only explains deduplication_mode and backend_mode by reference to another tool. The other 6 parameters (base_ref, errors_only, include_staged, etc.) are not described, leaving them undefined.

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 it collects changed files (staged, unstaged, untracked) relative to base_ref and analyzes them. It distinguishes from sibling 'code_quality_analyze_files' by referencing same deduplication and backend_mode options.

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?

Provides context about what changes are included (staged, unstaged, untracked) and excludes deleted files. References another tool's options but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'jetbrains_inspect_git_changes' or when not to use it.

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