api-changelog-tracker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions scanning and filtering but omits key aspects: whether the tool is read-only (likely not destructive), required permissions, rate limits, or response format. Minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds filtering options. No redundant or unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Tool has 4 parameters and no output schema; description is brief. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of changes with details), pagination, or performance implications. Incomplete for a scanning tool.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context about filtering by severity and date, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'detect', resource 'breaking changes', and scope 'across one or multiple APIs'. It also mentions filtering options (severity, date), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_versions or fetch_changelog.

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 implies usage for detecting breaking changes with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, idempotency, or return format. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose. Every word 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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format or behavior. It only states what the tool does, not what the agent can expect (e.g., diff object structure). Incomplete for effective 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it only restates dates. No extra constraints or formatting details.

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 the verb (compare), resource (changelog state), and scope (between two dates for an API). It distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_breaking_changes' and 'fetch_changelog' by focusing on changes over a period.

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?

Implies use for comparing changelog between dates, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Sibling names suggest different uses, but description does not directly address them.

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

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

The description indicates a read operation and mentions returning 'versioned entries with change details', but does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure, or side effects. Annotations are absent, so the description partially covers transparency but has gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is efficiently structured but could include more context without harming conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It lacks details on return format, pagination, and edge cases, making it complete enough for basic use but not rich.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('changelog/release notes'), and the scope ('for a specific API'). It distinguishes from siblings like detect_breaking_changes and diff_versions by focusing on retrieving raw entries.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., when to fetch vs. detect breaking changes). Prerequisites or context for usage are absent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Filter by category' and mentions returning metadata and changelog status, but lacks details such as whether the operation is read-only, whether there are pagination limits, or what constitutes 'metadata'. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 with two sentences covering purpose, content, and filtering. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the main action. Perfectly sized for a simple listing tool.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the structure of returned metadata or changelog status. It mentions these fields but leaves ambiguity about the format. For a simple listing tool with one parameter, this is adequate but could be improved by hinting at the output structure.

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 100% with one parameter ('category') fully described. The description adds 'Filter by category' which essentially restates the schema. Since schema already documents the parameter, the description provides no additional semantic value beyond restating the filter capability.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'tracked APIs', and includes details like 'metadata and latest changelog status'. It also mentions the filtering capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform other operations like detecting breaking changes or diffing versions.

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 implies usage for listing all APIs with filtering, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not conditions or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the subscription is idempotent, if authentication is required, if duplicate subscriptions are prevented, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a subscription tool.

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 a single sentence that concisely conveys the core action and result. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more efficient by integrating the return type implicitly.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as mutual exclusivity of email and webhook, subscription polling expectations, or rate limits. The agent may struggle to invoke this correctly without additional knowledge.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value. It mentions 'via webhook or email' but does not clarify parameter relationships (e.g., whether email and webhook can be combined).

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 purpose: subscribing to changelog updates for an API via webhook or email, and that it returns a subscription ID. It is distinct from siblings like detect_breaking_changes and fetch_changelog, which focus on detection and retrieval.

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 implies when to use (to subscribe) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, given the sibling context, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to infer proper usage.

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