lc_changed

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 states what the tool does (returns a list of modified files) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: what format the returned list is in, whether it's recursive or only checks the root directory, error handling for invalid paths, permissions required, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no unnecessary verbiage. The example path format adds clarity without being verbose.

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 that there's an output schema (which should describe the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a file system tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about traversal depth, error conditions, or permissions. The description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately but could be more complete about operational behavior.

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 description provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters beyond what the schema offers. The schema has 0% description coverage (just titles 'Root Path' and 'Timestamp'), but the description explains: 'root_path: Root directory path (e.g. '/home/user/projects/myproject')' and 'timestamp: Unix timestamp to check modifications since'. This adds valuable context about format and purpose that the schema lacks.

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: 'Returns list of files modified since given timestamp.' This is a specific verb ('returns list of files') with a clear resource scope ('modified since given timestamp'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lc_missing' or 'lc_outlines', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or any context for choosing this over other options. The only usage context is implied by the parameters, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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