whats_changed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that global mode reflects a background watch loop recomputed roughly every 60 seconds, while AOI mode is stateful and diffs against the caller's previous call. It does not explicitly state read-only status or permissions, but the core stateful behavior is clearly explained.

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 front-loaded with the core distinction: 'what CHANGED since the last check, not the full picture.' The following sentences each add useful context about statuses, global vs AOI behavior, and monitoring use without repetition or waste.

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?

The description adequately explains the key stateful diff behavior and global/AOI distinction, which is the main complexity. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the unexplained detail and radius_nm parameters leave meaningful gaps for a complete definition.

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 compensate for all four parameters. It explains lat/lon as an AOI and no-coords as global, but it does not explain the detail or radius_nm parameters at all, leaving half the parameters without semantic guidance.

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 verb and resource: it returns incidents that CHANGED since the last check, with explicit status categories NEW, ESCALATED, DE-ESCALATED, or RESOLVED. It also distinguishes this diff-oriented view from the full picture, making the tool's scope clear without needing sibling schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use global mode versus AOI mode, explains that AOI calls diff against the previous whats_changed call for that area, and recommends using this to monitor instead of re-reading the whole brief. This gives clear usage guidance and an implied alternative.

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