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 and does notable work: it declares 'Read-only,' identifies the underlying feed and namespace scope, and enumerates the shape of each returned entry (kind, article link, byte delta, editor, timestamp, comment, diff link). It does not cover rate limits, latency/freshness guarantees, or pagination, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Purpose and source are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the filter semantics and the sibling comparison. It is somewhat long and includes mild promotional framing ('great for spotting breaking-news edits'), but each sentence conveys usable information rather than filler.

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 3-param, zero-required, read-only feed tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value detail and the read-only safety profile. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only operational details like pagination or refresh behavior are absent.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine semantic meaning beyond the enum labels — 'edit' = text changes, 'new' = newly published articles, 'categorize' = category membership changes, 'log' = page moves, deletions, protections. It does not elaborate on `lang` or `limit`, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('show the most recent changes to Wikipedia articles') and scopes it to the article namespace via the MediaWiki recentchanges feed. It also explicitly names the sibling it differs from ('Complements `revisions`... with the reverse angle'), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear selection guidance: it explains that `revisions` is for the history of one article while this is the freshest edits everywhere, and it maps each `kind` value to a use case ('new' as a discovery feed, 'log' for moves/deletions/protections). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use rules or prerequisites, but the alternative is named with the condition that selects it.

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