get_mole_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that this is a read-only retrieval operation returning historical change data, including size/color changes and trend analysis. It does not mention response ordering or error conditions, but for a simple history getter this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, followed by purpose, and the usage guidance is folded cleanly into the second sentence.

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?

The tool has one required param, no output schema, and a simple read operation. The description sufficiently explains what the user gets, including key change categories and the intended use case. It could mention ordering or available time ranges, but these are not essential for accurate invocation.

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 already covers the single parameter moleId with a clear description ('The mole's unique identifier'), so the description does not need to add more. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no new parameter-level detail, but none is required.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('change history for a mole'), and lists concrete contents ('size changes, color changes, and trend analysis'). It clearly differs from siblings like get_mole_analysis or get_condition_progression, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use this to explain how a mole has evolved.' It clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against alternatives such as get_mole_analysis.

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