changes_in_period

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses ordering behavior (by_churn ranks by number of new versions; by_date lists most recently changed first) and mentions aggregate output. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, though it's implied as a query tool.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, provide usage examples, and clarify key parameter behavior. No wasted words.

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 7-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core output (works, version counts, dates), order semantics, and example use cases. It doesn't describe pagination defaults or return format in detail, but the schema covers limit/offset and the output is intuitive.

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 covers all parameters, but the description adds meaning for 'order' by explaining what each value does: 'by_churn ranks by number of new versions; by_date (default) lists most recently changed first'. This goes beyond the schema's simple enum description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'which works gained new versions between two dates, how many each, and when'. It explicitly contrasts with diff/timeline as the 'aggregate counterpart', distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'the aggregate counterpart of diff/timeline (which cover ONE work)' and provides concrete example queries ('what changed between 2025 and 2026'). This gives clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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