get_recent_changes

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the 2-minute time window, size comparison to sibling, and sorting by time. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior, but these are less critical for a simple polling tool.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states functionality, the second provides usage guidance and comparison, and the final section explains parameters. No wasted words.

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 the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and parameter details. It omits error handling and output format, but the output schema compensates for the latter.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides eva_no with an example and limit with default and sorting context, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get only the changes of the last 2 minutes for a station', providing a specific verb, resource, and time constraint. It also distinguishes from sibling get_live_changes by noting the size difference.

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 advises 'use for frequent polling' and contrasts with get_live_changes, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for historical data.

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