List recent changes and interrupted commits in a workspace, showing paths, hashes, state, and change IDs to track file modifications.
List 1-100 recent changes and interrupted commits for the current physical workspace. Returns paths, hashes, state and change_id, never backup contents. History persists offline; changing root identity does not inherit its history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| workspace | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2-demo.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it never returns backup contents, history persists offline, and changing root identity does not inherit history. This goes beyond the annotations.
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?
Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it lists, what it returns, and persistence/identity behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 read-only list tool with strong annotations and a simple two-parameter schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It doesn't describe the return format in detail, but no output schema exists and the description already lists returned fields (paths, hashes, state, change_id). Minor gap: no explicit mention of sorting order or error conditions.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the limit range (1-100) and the workspace scope ('current physical workspace'), but doesn't detail the format of the workspace parameter or the limit parameter beyond the schema's default. The description adds some meaning but not full compensation for zero schema coverage.
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 recent changes and interrupted commits for the current physical workspace, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on change history rather than files or workspaces.
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 implies when to use this tool: when needing change history for the current workspace. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'current physical workspace' provide context. It could be stronger by explicitly saying not to use it for file contents or other workspaces.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.