cache_recent_changes

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 states 'newest first' ordering and that it returns proposals of any status, which is useful. However, it omits details like whether the data is live or cached, any rate limits, or the exact scope of 'recent' (e.g., time window). Thus, transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second provides the rationale and ordering. 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, scope (single cache, any status), ordering (newest first), and use case (avoid re-proposing). It could mention pagination or the default/ max limit, but the limit parameter already has defaults in the schema. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple list 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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for cache_name, limit, and instanceId. Baseline score of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 returns 'recent proposals for a single cache (any status)', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It differentiates from sibling tools like cache_list_pending_proposals by focusing on any status and providing recency ordering.

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 explains the purpose: 'so agents can avoid re-proposing pending or recently-applied changes'. This gives clear guidance on when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives among the many sibling proposal tools.

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