check_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is a cheap incremental check, it returns changed devices plus their new hash, and it imposes a strict input-privacy rule (no host names, IPs, MACs, user or site names).

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the identity of the tool and the workflow constraint stated first and the privacy warning last. 'Use this for repeat checks' lightly restates the opening phrase, a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value duty and does so: it explains that changed devices and their new hash come back. Combined with the input-privacy rule and the follow-up guidance, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 still earns credit by explaining the workflow contract — reuse the same vendor/product/version plus the retained result_hash from correlate_devices — and by adding a privacy constraint that the schema only partially mirrors ('Never a host name or address').

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 opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('Cheap repeat check') and immediately scopes it to devices previously processed by correlate_devices. An agent can distinguish it from correlate_devices without opening either schema, since the repeat-check role is stated outright.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('Use this for repeat checks') and routes the follow-up work precisely: 'only changed devices need a fresh correlate_devices call.' The sibling relationship and the condition that selects each tool are both spelled out.

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