extract_changelog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful mechanism and output context (GitHub Releases API, timestamped version/date/content), going beyond the annotations, though it omits rate limits, auth needs, or error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then return shape, then use cases. No padding and every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape (version numbers, release dates, entry content, timestamped). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it leaves auth/rate-limit details unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the URL/npm distinction that the description repeats. The description adds little beyond the schema's own field descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Extract) and resource (update history), and names both accepted input types (GitHub repo URL vs npm package). An agent can distinguish this from extract_github or search_repos without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it – checking maintenance activity, feature shipping dates, team velocity – which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or an exclusion condition, so it doesn't reach 5.

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