List recent changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the sort order (newest first) and the source (DiffMind), which is useful. But it omits any mention of filtering behavior, default limits, or what fields are returned, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and adds a clear use case without any fluff. Every word 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 list tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to successfully invoke it. It could mention default limit or return shape, but the schema and purpose cover the essentials. Slight gap is the absence of any note about pagination or result details.

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 three parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, but it is not required to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as the one that lists changes recorded in DiffMind, ordered newest first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like recall_change by framing itself as an orientation tool rather than a detail lookup.

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?

It explicitly says to use this at the start of a new session or to answer 'what has been done so far?' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is still strong.

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