Historial de canvis de mapicgc-gl-js

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about the return format (raw markdown text?), size, pagination, or whether a non-existent version errors or returns empty — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the default behaviour and then the conditional narrowing. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus schema give an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the return-shape ambiguity keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the version example and the omit-for-full-history behaviour. The description largely repeats that same semantic rather than adding matching rules (exact string vs semver, case sensitivity), so it earns the baseline 3.

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 (retorna) and a specific resource (the CHANGELOG of mapicgc-gl-js), plus the narrowed scope of a single version. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (get_api, search_docs, get_example), though it does not explicitly state that differentiation.

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 spells out both modes of use: omit the version to get the whole history, or pass a version like '1.0.0' to get only that release's entries. It gives no when-not guidance or alternatives, but the conditional branch is explicit and enough to pick the call shape.

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