Buscar Cambios

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds the 'free text' search behavior but does not disclose scope (project vs global) or return format. This is acceptable given the annotation covers the main safety concern.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose.

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 search tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It does not explain how this tool differs from 'get_relevant_changes', nor does it mention that the search operates on local memory (as indicated by projectPath and includeGlobal). The schema provides parameter details, but without an output schema, the return format is not disclosed, and the description does not compensate.

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 60%, with descriptions for projectPath, includeGlobal, and includeProject, but not for query and limit. The description adds meaning to 'query' by calling it 'texto libre' (free text), but does not clarify 'limit' or other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It provides some added value but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 'Busca cambios por texto libre' clearly states the tool's function: searching changes by free text. It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (changes). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_relevant_changes', which likely also searches changes in a similar manner.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_relevant_changes' or 'list_changes'. There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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