board_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose meaningful traits: only user edits are reported, the agent's own changes are excluded, and the first call records a baseline rather than returning deltas. It omits whether the tool itself mutates the board and says nothing about return shape or ordering.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the exclusion rule, then the baseline caveat. No filler.

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 usefully names the returned change categories, which is the main thing an agent needs. It leaves the delta payload structure and the effect of the baseline call on subsequent responses implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional path parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the path argument or the live-versus-file mode distinction the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reports what the USER changed on the board') and enumerates the change categories (added, modified, deleted). It also distinguishes itself from describe_board by scope and from the agent's own edits, so an agent can identify it 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?

Names describe_board or board_changes as the reference point for 'since your last look' and clarifies the first-call baseline behavior, giving clear context for invocation. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., 'use find_objects instead if you need a full snapshot').

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