get_changes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the caveat that results are 'compact' and that 'complete data remains in the archive'. That is genuine behavioral context about result completeness that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the caveat following. No wasted text, though the second sentence is somewhat oblique about what a 'coverage check' means.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the returned record shape and pagination behavior. It leaves pagination (limit/offset) and the change object structure unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict results.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden for three parameters. It only explains 'since' implicitly as a timestamp; the limit and offset parameters, including their defaults and pagination meaning, are left entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Read compact archive changes since a timestamp' tells an agent exactly what it retrieves and the required anchor point. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like sync or sync_status, which is the only gap.

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 line 'changes are not a substitute for coverage checks' cautions about interpretation but gives no when-to-use rule and names no alternative tool. An agent has no guidance on choosing this over sync or sync_status.

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