get_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the return values (plugin, version, changelog_raw with null case), offering good insight into behavior. No side effects noted, but as a read operation this is acceptable.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage hint, then return fields. No unnecessary words, well structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read operation), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and return structure. With an output schema present, it provides sufficient completeness.

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 only parameter 'plugin' is a string; the description does not add meaning beyond the schema property name. Schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter is self-explanatory. Score reflects adequate but not enhanced sematics.

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?

Clearly states 'Get the full CHANGELOG.md content for a plugin', providing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the mention of being useful after check_compliance hints at 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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario: 'Useful after check_compliance signals an outdated entry.' It implies when to use but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools.

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