List recently changed roadmap features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are filtered by a time window and sorted newest first, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, authentication, or other edge-case behaviors, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is direct and informative, and the second adds a helpful metaphor without redundancy. 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?

For a low-complexity tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core function and usage context. It lacks explicit details about response content, but the title and description make it clear the tool returns changed features, which is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description only loosely references the 'days' parameter with 'last N days' and does not add extra meaning for 'limit' or 'product'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 lists features added or updated in the last N days, with a specific verb (list) and resource (recently changed roadmap features). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_roadmap and get_roadmap_item by focusing on recency and change detection, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'This is the radar: what moved on the roadmap since you last looked' provides clear context for when to use the tool—as a periodic check for updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough given the sibling tool names.

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