get_recent_changes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication or permission requirements, or the shape of the return value. The description offers no behavioral insight beyond the tool name itself.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. While it is efficient, the lack of detail makes it less useful than a slightly longer description with more substance.

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 low complexity (two simple optional parameters) and no output schema, the description is expected to provide a clear picture of what is returned. However, it fails to specify the domain of 'entities' or clarify how it differs from overlapping siblings like get_new_reviews and get_rating_history. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema defines 'days' and 'limit' with defaults, but the description provides no additional meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how these parameters affect results, but it does not. An agent cannot infer the significance of 'days' (e.g., lookback window) or 'limit' (max results) from the description.

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 states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('new/missing/changed entities and rating changes'), but 'entities' is vague and could refer to teachers, departments, or other objects. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_new_reviews or get_rating_history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about the intended use case, such as monitoring changes over time or supplementing other tools, leaving the agent to infer when it should be invoked.

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