Get Issue Changelog

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

The description explains that results are paginated with a 'next_cursor', how to fetch subsequent pages, and what a null cursor means. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by revealing the response shape and pagination behavior, without contradicting the annotation.

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 sentences: the first packs the core purpose and content categories, the second explains pagination clearly. No verbose or redundant language; each clause 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains pagination, the kinds of changes included, and the stopping condition, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional 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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little about individual parameters. However, it reinforces the cursor-based pagination semantics by explaining the next_cursor/cursor relationship, which complements the schema's cursor description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('change history of a Yandex Tracker issue by its id'), and enumerates the content (status transitions, field edits, comment changes, triggers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_get_comments or issue_get_transitions.

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 reading an issue's audit trail and provides detailed pagination guidance (how to use next_cursor and cursor, when to stop). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternative read tools, but the content list makes the use case clear.

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