List a changelog

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it works without an API key for published games, applies to any visible game, and orders entries so the latest is where work resumes. This adds meaningful context not present in the annotations.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, scope, auth behavior, and a practical usage tip with no filler. The key definition is front-loaded, and the guidance earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what the tool returns, the scope of access, authentication requirements, and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return contents.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted formats of slug or uuid. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing a changelog, and elaborates on what that means (change history, timestamps, version labels, build status). It also distinguishes itself from the changelog mutation siblings by being the read-facing counterpart.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use the tool, notably before modifying a game that hasn't been shipped to in a while, and notes the last entry is the starting point for the next version. It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives like add_changelog_entry, but the read-vs-write distinction is clear from context and sibling names.

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