get_changes_since

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the return format (GUID, change type, time, watermark) but does not mention potential pagination via 'max_results' or the effect of 'include_data'. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value, and it is optimally sized given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 4 parameters, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior, the optional 'include_data' parameter's impact on performance, or the format of the watermark. However, it covers the core purpose and return fields sufficiently for basic usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the 'watermark' concept or how 'max_results' limits output.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'get list of objects changed after specified label' and positions it as 'Change Data Capture for syncing doubles'. This distinctively sets it apart from siblings like 'get_list' or 'get_event_log', which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly states the use case: synchronization of twins (двойников). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear and helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool over others.

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