extract_changelog

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with flexible inputs. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies auto-discovery of changelog paths (/changelog, /releases, etc.), mentions using GitHub Releases API for GitHub URLs, and describes the return format (version numbers, release dates, entry content, timestamped). No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the tool's function and input types, the second provides usage examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, read-only annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, usage, and behavioral context well. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description partially compensates by describing return content (version numbers, dates, entries).

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%, providing full documentation for both parameters. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what types of inputs are accepted (GitHub URL, npm package name, website URL) and hinting at auto-discovery behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 specific action ('Extract update history') and resource scope ('from any product, repo, or package'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on extracting other data types like finance, GitHub, or SEC filings. It provides concrete examples of input types (GitHub URL, npm package name, website URL).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to check if a tool is actively maintained, when a feature shipped, or how fast a team moves'), providing clear context and use cases. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on changelog extraction rather than other data landscapes or searches.

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