asset_latest_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return value ('change report + a new_assets list flagged as high-priority') and the parameter semantics (empty = all runs). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though likely read-only), pagination, or error conditions. It adds some useful behavioral context but is not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds parameter and return semantics in clear labeled sections. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value adequately. It remains slightly vague about the exact structure of the 'change report,' but this is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature and the absence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single 'program' parameter: 'focus on one program (empty = all runs across programs). This provides complete meaning beyond the bare schema definition, including default behavior.

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 action ('Show what changed') and the resource ('between the two most recent completed runs'). It positions itself as the 'core continuous-recon view,' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like asset_diff_runs or asset_list_runs. The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('core continuous-recon view: what's new since last time?'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, such as when a diff between arbitrary runs is needed (asset_diff_runs). The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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