Get Recent Changes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, UTC timestamps, an undo marker, and a 10-object-per-transaction truncation cap. It stops short of explaining how to retrieve beyond that cap or any pagination semantics.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before diving into return contents and alternatives. Dense but every clause (field list, undo marker, Reference representation, alternatives) carries information; only the per-transaction object cap could be trimmed or clarified.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly (field list, ordering, unit of time, link representation). The lone parameter is covered by the schema, and alternatives are named, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1–100, default 20, clamping behavior). The description adds nothing for it, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra meaning is contributed.

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 and resource ("Show the tree's recent edit history") and enumerates the exact fields returned, including ordering, UTC commit time, undo marker, per-object class/change kind/handle, and the Reference representation for links. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_timeline and get_object by name.

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?

Gives two explicit use cases ("see what was changed last and by whom" and "check that your own writes landed") and routes the agent to alternatives with the selecting condition: get_timeline for dated events of one person, get_object to read a changed record.

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