detect_changes

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

The description discloses that no code bodies are sent and nothing is transmitted, implying privacy. However, it does not clarify required permissions, side effects, or prerequisites like git repository access. Given no annotations, some behavioral gaps remain.

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 concise, using dense symbols and keywords to pack information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and key usage. Slightly cryptic but efficient for those familiar with git and impact analysis.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow and output format but leaves several parameters (depth, backend, maxResults, projectPath) unexplained. Sufficient for basic use, incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 50%; the description adds meaning for 'staged' and 'base' beyond the schema. Other params (backend, maxResults, projectPath) lack schema descriptions and are not explained in the tool description, so partial compensation.

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 reviews a diff by impact, performing git diff, identifying changed symbols, and assessing blast radius and risk. It distinguishes from siblings like find_references and diagnostics by focusing on impact analysis and risk levels.

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?

Explicitly suggests use before committing and explains the staged parameter for index vs working tree, as well as base ref. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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