tasks_changes_since

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by detailing the polling mechanism, cursor state management, file system interactions, and scope tracking. It explains edge cases like removed entries with null titles and the cursor file location and permissions. Annotations provide readOnlyHint and non-idempotent, which are consistent and supplemented.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then systematically explains behavior, scope options, edge cases, and file details. Every sentence adds value, though a bullet-point structure could improve readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (stateful incremental diff, multiple scope types, file system writes, output envelope format), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all key aspects including removed entry structure, cursor initialization, and security (file mode 0o600). The output schema exists but is not shown; however, the description explains the return format adequately.

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?

The scope parameter is extensively described with three possible kinds (plan, assigned_to_me, registry) and their semantics, including cursor key derivation. The max_results parameter is not mentioned in the description, but it has a default of 200 and is a simple integer. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for scope but not fully for max_results.

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 explicitly states it provides an incremental diff of Microsoft Planner tasks since the last call, detailing the output format and scope mechanisms. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like planner_tasks or tasks_search by focusing on change tracking rather than full listing.

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 explains when to use this tool (for polling incremental changes) and describes first-call vs subsequent-call behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of incremental sync is well-established.

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