get_recent_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does clarify one useful semantic — that 'removed' means cancelled — but says nothing about whether a permissions or refresh is required, whether results are ordered or capped, or how far back the lookback extends.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the change-type enumeration is packed efficiently. It is under-specified rather than bloated, which is a different problem from verbosity.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape and the tool has just one parameter, so the bar is not high, but the description still omits the lookback window semantics that define the tool's entire behavior. An agent cannot tell how far 'recently' reaches without reading the schema default.

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 0%, so the sole parameter 'days' is undocumented in both places. The description's word 'recently' only vaguely gestures at a time window and never states the default of 7 days or the 1-60 range enforced by the schema.

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 names the resource (upcoming programs) and enumerates the change types it reports (added, removed/cancelled, edited), which distinguishes it somewhat from sibling readers like get_events. However, there is no verb and no statement of what is actually returned — a list of change records or a list of programs — and 'Upcoming' sits awkwardly against 'recently', leaving the temporal scope ambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never references the many plausible alternatives (get_events, get_events_range, search_events, refresh_now). Nothing tells the agent when this 'changes' view is preferable to simply listing events.

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