wiki_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context by clarifying the return is a list of changed notes rather than diffs, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or whether results are capped by the limit default.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a two-parameter feed tool with zero schema description coverage, the description omits limit semantics and result ordering, which an agent needs to paginate correctly.

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 compensate. It usefully defines since_ms as a Unix millisecond timestamp, adding units and epoch semantics the schema lacks, but the limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (List) and resource (notes) plus the filter condition (updated since a Unix millisecond timestamp). The negative clause 'Not a semantic diff' clarifies what kind of result it is not, but no sibling tool is named, so differentiation from wiki_search or wiki_review_queue is left to inference.

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?

'Not a semantic diff' implies a usage boundary (use this for a change feed, not for content comparison), but no alternative tool is named and no when-to-use condition against wiki_search is stated. Usage is only implied.

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