Cambios Relevantes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Devuelve' is consistent (read operation). The description adds little beyond the annotation, not explaining how relevance is determined or that it uses local/project memory (as suggested by parameters). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, though it could briefly mention the memory aspect without becoming verbose.

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?

The description states the tool returns relevant changes but does not explain the retrieval mechanism or the use of global/project memory (evident from parameters). With no output schema, more details about the returned content would improve completeness, but the purpose is still clear.

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 description clarifies that the 'task' parameter refers to a task or risk ('tarea o riesgo concreto'), adding meaning to the otherwise undocumented schema field. However, it does not explain 'limit' or other parameters, and schema coverage is only 60%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 uses the verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and identifies the resource 'cambios relevantes' (relevant changes) for a specific task or risk, providing specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_changes or get_change by focusing on relevance to a task/risk, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 phrase 'para una tarea o riesgo concreto' gives a clear use case, implying when to use the tool. However, it provides no exclusions or comparison with siblings like search_changes, so guidance on alternatives is missing.

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