report_changes

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 what the tool reports (files changed, commands run, git operations, branch/commit state, uncommitted changes) and adds context about its purpose (memory-independent, final report). It doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, but the aggregating nature and lack of modification verbs make it clear.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and details, followed by a clear directive. No filler or repetition, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the content scope, purpose, and usage. It doesn't detail return format, but 'summarise' implies a textual report. The description is sufficient for the given complexity and sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'against' and 'workspace' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't reference the parameters or provide extra context.

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 the tool's verb ('Summarise'), the resource ('everything done in this workspace'), and gives specific details (files changed with line counts, commands run with pass/fail, git operations, branch and commit state). It distinguishes itself from sibling git commands (git_status, git_diff, etc.) by being a comprehensive summary tool rather than a raw query.

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 says to use this 'to write an accurate final report instead of relying on memory' and 'to see what is still uncommitted,' which indicates its primary use cases. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies it's the go-to for a high-level report over individual git commands.

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