Registry changelog

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavior: kind filtering semantics, symbol narrowing, and that since returns only newer rows oldest first with a nextCursor. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, response shape, or pagination mechanics beyond the cursor mention, but the 'changelog' framing implies a read-only listing.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds scope or parameter semantics, and the semicolon-separated structure keeps it readable despite its length.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers event scope and parameter behavior well enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It still omits the output row shape and any explicit guidance for selecting this tool over related siblings, so it is not fully 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 description coverage is only 25%, but the description compensates well: it explains kind filtering with allowed prefixes, symbol narrowing to one token, and since semantics including ordering and nextCursor. Only limit is left to the schema's min/max constraints, which are fairly self-explanatory.

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 opens with 'Authority events' and lists concrete event categories, making it clear this is a changelog/query tool for registry events. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as activity or history, but the stated scope is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 strong within-tool usage guidance: kind can filter exactly or by prefix, symbol narrows to one token, and since returns newer rows with a cursor. However, it never says when to choose this tool over sibling tools like activity, history, or chain_health, so cross-tool selection must be inferred.

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