changes_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that changes are scoped to the bound AbraFlexi company and that results are returned as a page, which supports safe usage. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens at the end of tracked history, though the schema partially covers pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the scoping clarification is relevant and placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple paginated read tool with a full output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and scoping, but could be more complete by noting how this differs from evidence_get_record_changes and by explicitly confirming the operation is non-mutating.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important 'page' and 'incremental synchronization' conceptual framing, but it does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents for limit, start, and evidences.

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 operation ('Get') and the resource ('a page of company-wide recorded changes via the Changes API'), and adds the specific purpose of incremental synchronization. This differentiates it from siblings like evidence_get_record_changes, which is scoped to individual records rather than company-wide changes.

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 explicit mention of 'incremental synchronization of external systems' gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice, and the company-wide scope is stated. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions where a sibling tool like evidence_get_record_changes should be preferred instead.

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