plms_check_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: the write is confined to an 'encrypted local baseline' and no alerting/scheduling occurs. It still doesn't say what happens on the first run with no baseline, or where the baseline lives.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the two caveats (local-only write, no alerts) trailing. It is terse rather than padded, though the clause structure is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity about 'previous check'.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the comparison scope plus non-alerting behavior are covered. However, the stateful 'previous check' concept — first-run behavior, baseline persistence, scope of the diff — is left unexplained, which matters for a non-idempotent stateful tool.

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 0% for the single required course_id, and the description never references it or explains its format/source. With one undocumented parameter the description must compensate and instead says nothing, so the agent gets no guidance beyond the bare name.

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 concrete verb (Compare) and enumerates the compared resources (course materials, assignments, notices) against a previous check, which cleanly separates it from siblings like plms_weekly_brief or plms_compare_syllabus. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer which change-detection tool to pick.

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?

'with previous check' implies the tool is for diffing against stored state, and 'No scheduled alerts' rules out one adjacent use case. But no alternative is named (e.g., when to prefer plms_weekly_brief or plms_compare_syllabus), and prerequisites such as needing a prior run are only implied.

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