Get Issue Changelog

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds valuable behavioral detail beyond it: results are paginated, the response contains a next_cursor, and that cursor must be passed back as the cursor parameter until it becomes null. It also discloses the breadth of events included, such as triggered triggers.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and expected contents, followed by the pagination contract. It contains no filler, though the first sentence is slightly dense with enumerated content.

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 output schema exists, all parameters are documented, and the tool is read-only, the description sufficiently covers scope and pagination behavior. It does not discuss alternative tools or edge cases, but those are not required for correct invocation here.

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 all five parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and examples. The description adds only the pagination loop concept ('next_cursor' passed back as 'cursor' until null), which is a modest enhancement rather than a necessary compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the change history of a Yandex Tracker issue') and enumerates exactly what the changelog contains: status transitions, field edits, comment changes, and executed triggers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like issue_get_comments or issue_get.

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 intended use is clear: this is the tool for retrieving an issue's full change history, including who changed what and when. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the described scope gives agents enough context to select it appropriately.

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