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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds behavioral context beyond that. It explains delta-vs-full-context behavior, the meaning of the 'since' cursor, and that 'session' controls visibility into neighboring sessions for the same token. It does not describe pagination or exact output shape, but the output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose and 'call first' guidance. Every sentence contributes usage or parameter context. Some phrasing, such as 'Курсора' and 'токена', is slightly cryptic, keeping it from a full 5.

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 an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, initial-call routing, fallback behavior, and two parameter semantics. The missing explanation of project_id is a minor gap for a tool whose primary job is clearly described. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains 'since' as coming from the previous response's cursor and 'session' as a branch label that exposes neighboring sessions. It does not explain the required project_id parameter at all, leaving a clear gap.

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 states a specific purpose: returning project changes since the last visit across journal, assignments, files, map shelves, and dialogs. It clearly distinguishes itself as an initial aggregator rather than a single-resource reader. It does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings like read_journal, but the aggregate scope is clear.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call it FIRST when starting a project, expect delta for familiar projects and full context for first-time projects. It also names a concrete alternative/fallback: use get_project_context when the result says 'many changes'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use cases for the individual sibling read tools, but the main routing is clear.

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