get_significant_change_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool aggregates content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Aggregate') and resource ('markdown sections and FRMR references'), making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning its place as a concise definition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (aggregating content with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list, compiled text), how 'Significant Change' is defined, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns data, the absence of output details and minimal context makes it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has one parameter 'limit' with a default and range, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptive context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is acceptable since there's only one parameter and the schema defines it clearly. However, it doesn't add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'limit' affects aggregation (e.g., number of results). Given 0% schema coverage and 0 parameters mentioned, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate heavily.

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 states the tool aggregates markdown sections and FRMR references related to Significant Change, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'aggregate' entails (e.g., list, compile, summarize) and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'search_markdown' or 'get_frmr_document', which might handle similar content. The verb 'aggregate' is specific but lacks detail on the output format or scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Significant Change' as a topic, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Siblings like 'search_markdown' or 'get_frmr_document' might overlap, but the description offers no comparison or usage scenarios, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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