get_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that events are ordered and that fetching starts after a given event ID, which is useful but not extensive behavior detail. It does not mention pagination or how filters interact, so it provides a moderate amount of additional transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key qualifier. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 6 parameters (3 undocumented), moderate complexity, and available annotations/output schema, the description is terse. It does not explain the relationship between limit, event_types, and the event ordering, nor how to handle subsequent pages. However, the output schema and annotations reduce the need for return-value explanation, making it minimally complete for a read-only sync endpoint.

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 50%: issue_id, project_ref, and agent_session_handle are described in the schema, while limit, event_types, and since_event_id are not. The description references 'event ID' which helps clarify since_event_id but does not elaborate on limit or event_types. This adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('ordered issue events'), and the specific scope ('after an event ID for incremental synchronization'). This distinctly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_issue_activity by emphasizing incremental sync and event ordering.

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 a clear usage context ('for incremental synchronization'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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