veto_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is local and read-only (no external calls), but does not elaborate on potential side effects, failure modes, or performance characteristics. The added value is moderate but incomplete.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence communicates the main purpose and grouping behavior, while the second adds a key assurance. No wasted words.

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 simplicity and that the schema covers parameters, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and local nature. It could mention the output format (e.g., markdown) but that is a minor omission.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('max_entries' and 'project_dir'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool generates a structured changelog from git commits since the last tag, grouped by conventional commit type. It uses specific verbs ('generates') and resources ('changelog from git commits'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like veto_commit_message and veto_release_notes.

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 provides clear context by noting 'Pure local git — no external calls,' which implies when to use this tool over alternatives that might involve network or external systems. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to siblings.

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