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 indicates a read-only query via the word 'query' but omits important behavior such as default date range, pagination, output format, or side effects. The description does not add meaningful context beyond the basic query nature.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and main features. There is no wasted wording, and it is easy to scan.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as what 'recent' means (time range), default behavior, how results are returned, or how this differs from sibling tools like search_changes. The tool is not adequately specified for an agent to select and invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description partially compensates by listing filter dimensions (date, endpoint, object type/name, change kind, source) that map to the parameters. However, it does not explain parameter meanings or formats beyond what's already in the schema, leaving some parameters like 'source' and 'endpoint' without additional semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a structured, filterable query over change history and lists the key filter dimensions (date, endpoint, object type/name, change kind, source). This is a specific verb+resource pairing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_changes, which may also query change 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_object_history or search_changes. It only implies usage through 'filterable query' but gives no context about which scenarios call for this tool over others.

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