get_person_changes

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds the auth requirement ('Requires an access token'), the shape of each entry (contributor, timestamp, change, typed reason), and the community-edited nature of the tree. It does not cover pagination or log-length limits.

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-loads the action in the first sentence, then context, then the prerequisite. The framing prose ('This is how you judge what you are looking at') is somewhat atmospheric, but each paragraph still carries distinct payload.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields of each log entry, and it flags the access-token prerequisite. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Only one parameter, person_id, and schema coverage is 100% with a format example ('K2ZP-VY1'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies – the schema carries this dimension entirely.

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 and resource: 'Read the change log of a tree profile: who edited it, when and why.' That is unambiguous and distinct from sibling reads like get_person or get_person_sources. It never names or contrasts a sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

Gives a clear interpretive use case – judging how a profile was assembled and where a conflation likely entered – plus a concrete trigger (a name/parent changed recently with no reason). It also sets boundaries ('a hint where to look, not evidence... cite the record'). It does not name competing tools or state when not to call it.

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