What a project shipped

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, open-world profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: each event carries a stated time-precision/confidence signal, and results are paginated via the 'before' cursor. It stops short of noting rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read query it covers the traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then event scope, lenses, and pagination in two dense lines with no filler. 'Each with how precisely HEY knows its time' is slightly cryptic but carries genuine meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still covers event taxonomy, lens scoping, and pagination. Slug formatting and limit defaults are left to the schema, which handles them, so nothing critical is missing.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the lens vocabulary and clarifies that 'before' is a pagination cursor returned by the previous answer, but it adds nothing on slug format or limit behavior beyond the schema, and the lens enum itself has no schema description to build on.

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 definition leads with a specific question ('What did this project ship, and when?') and enumerates the concrete event types returned (builds, releases, contract deploys, token verification, locks/unlocks), so the resource is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings (get_changes, project_diff, get_project_snapshot), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

It explains the available lenses, which steers filtering choices, but gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to alternatives like get_changes or project_diff. An agent must infer from the sibling list when a timeline is the right view.

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