file_changes_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the background watcher monitors and keeps only the latest 100 events in memory, which is critical for understanding constraints. However, it does not specify behavior when no changes exist or whether the log is volatile across sessions.

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 short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. Every word adds value.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers its behavior (100-event in-memory log). It is complete for the complexity level.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves a log of recent file modifications, creations, or deletions in the workspace. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'file changes' are precise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'file_read' and 'file_delete' by focusing on a history of operations rather than direct file actions.

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 implies the tool is for reviewing recent file activity, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'file_read' for content, 'workspace_search' for content). No when-not or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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