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 mentions ordering ('Newest first') and status inclusivity ('any status'), but lacks details on temporal recency, side effects, authentication, or read-only nature. Basic but not comprehensive.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the key information (purpose and ordering) with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., fields of each proposal). It also assumes domain knowledge of 'proposals' without elaboration. The context around caching and proposals is partially filled by sibling tool names but not fully clarified in the description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema (e.g., reason for use), but the schema already describes each parameter adequately. No significant additive value.

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 it lists recent proposals for a single cache, with the specific purpose of helping agents avoid re-proposing pending or recently-applied changes. It distinguishes from siblings like cache_list_pending_proposals which may list all caches.

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 when to use the tool ('so agents can avoid re-proposing pending or recently-applied changes'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cache_list_pending_proposals or cache_get_proposal. The usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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