whats_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it reveals that handled items are hidden unless `include_handled` is true, that the reply carries deadline shifts (`moved_from`) and `pending_courses` needing user arbitration, and it documents the accepted forms of `since`. It does not explain `course`/`limit` behavior or explicitly state this is a read-only operation, but those are secondary gaps here.

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 short paragraphs, each earning its place: a front-loaded purpose sentence, the critical `since` grammar, and the handled-items/reply semantics. No filler or repetition; dense but readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered elsewhere, and the description usefully adds semantics for `moved_from` and `pending_courses`. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the unexplained `course` and `limit` parameters are a notable gap for a tool positioned as 'the main tool'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly documents `since` (full grammar: `last_run`, `all`, durations like `7d`/`48h`, ISO dates, epoch integers) and clarifies the intent of `include_handled`, but `limit` and `course` receive no explanation, leaving half the parameters under-documented.

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 purpose: reporting what 'appeared, changed or vanished since `since`', a change-detection/diff view that is distinct from siblings like `history`, `backlog`, or `search`. Calling itself 'The main tool' signals its role as the primary entry point, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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 main tool' implies this is the default starting point, and the 'what remains, not what happened' framing explains when the tool fits (current open/relevant changes vs. history). However, there are no explicit exclusions or redirects to alternatives such as `history`, `deadlines`, or `search`, so an agent must infer when to choose a sibling instead.

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