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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the types of changes returned (constraints added/updated, knowledge changes, decisions recorded, alerts raised/resolved) and conveys that it is a read-only changelog by nature. It does not mention potential limitations like the 90-day max window, but that is captured in the schema.

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: the first states the core function and return content, the second gives a direct usage recommendation. Every clause is informative, there is no fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description supplies essential context: what it returns, for which domains, and when to use it. Since an output schema exists, the return structure is covered there. The description could have mentioned optional parameters like 'limit' or 'include', but these are well-documented in the schema, so the description remains adequate for selection and invocation.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by listing artefact types that map to the 'include' parameter, but this is largely redundant with the schema's enum. No further parameter-level detail is provided.

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 identifies the tool as a 'cross-artefact-type changelog' that returns changes across constraints, knowledge, decisions, and alerts, which distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like get_constraints or get_audit_trail. The verb is implied by 'Returns' and the resource is precisely scoped to 'specified domains since a given timestamp.'

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 states the primary usage context: 'Use at session start to learn what changed in your domain since your last session.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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