cache_recent_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns recent proposals in order (newest first) with no destructive effects, which is adequate for a read-only query. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, data volume limits, or time window definition for 'recent'.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence plus a clarifying phrase. All content is purposeful, with the key behavior ('recent proposals for a single cache') and rationale 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should compensate. It mentions order (newest first) but not the fields returned, the time span of 'recent', or how to interpret the results. For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, more detail is needed for complete understanding.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (cache_name, limit, instanceId). The description adds no further semantic detail, such as the meaning of 'recent' or how limit interacts with default ordering. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning recent proposals for a single cache in any status, with a specific reason (avoid re-proposing). It distinguishes from siblings like cache_list_pending_proposals and cache_get_proposal by emphasizing 'any status' and 'recent'.

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 use case: to avoid re-proposing pending or recently-applied changes. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance, making it clear enough for effective selection.

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