search_changelog

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 implies a read-only search operation but does not specify behavior such as pagination, ordering, or whether the search is case-insensitive (though the schema indicates case-insensitive for query). Details about response format or potential side effects are missing.

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 at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('searches the changelog') and then lists the filtering options efficiently.

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 no output schema and only 4 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for a search tool. However, it lacks information about result format, pagination (though limit is a parameter), and default behavior. It is functional but not complete.

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 100% with all parameters described. The description only reiterates that filters are available (freetext, version, category) without adding new semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 that the tool searches the changelog and mentions filtering by free text, version, and/or category, which distinguishes it from get_entry (single entry retrieval) and preview_entry (preview). However, it could be more specific about the return type (list of entries).

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_entry or preview_entry. It only states the filtering capabilities, but does not indicate when to prefer search over direct lookup.

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