get_recent_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively warns about performance implications ('Long time periods with active documents can return many words'), which is crucial context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (though no output schema exists). The description adds meaningful value but isn't comprehensive.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. The structure is optimal for a tool description.

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's complexity (8 parameters, temporal filtering, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a key warning, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with rich parameters but no output schema, more context would be helpful, though the concise warning adds value.

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 the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'nodes' or clarify parameter interactions). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have enhanced understanding of parameters like 'bypass_warning'.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get nodes created or modified within a time period.' It specifies the resource (nodes) and action (get) with temporal filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_in_document' or 'list_documents' which might also retrieve document content, though the time-based filtering is distinctive.

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 provides some implicit usage guidance through the WARNING about long time periods returning many words, which suggests when to be cautious. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_in_document' or 'list_documents', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.

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