changes_since

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 real value beyond that by disclosing the returned content (newest change, authors, agent clients, operations, reasons) and the conditional behavior of the links flag (links added/removed, orphan transitions). It is silent on the odd idempotentHint=false and on pagination, so it falls short of 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core scope is front-loaded, and the conditional `links` behavior follows in a clean subordinate clause. Every phrase carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does a fair job sketching the return payload and the links-mode delta. But the undocumented `limit` parameter, unknown pagination behavior, and lack of differentiation from siblings leave gaps for a three-parameter read 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 coverage is only 33%: `since` is documented in the schema, and the description meaningfully explains the conditional semantics of `links: true`, which is more than the schema provides. However, `limit` is left entirely unexplained in both places, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Concept changes from git history since a timestamp or duration') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like concept_history or log_tail, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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 temporal framing ('since a timestamp or duration') hints at a recent-changes query, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative concept_history. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria.

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