get_delta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers non-obvious behavior: always fetches live data, first call returns nothing but a baseline, and the acknowledge flag controls whether the cursor advances. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and the response shape (counts vs. lists).

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 core purpose and packs high-value state semantics into a few sentences with little waste. The mid-sentence parameter notes ('conference: optional UrlSegmentName...') interrupt the flow slightly but remain efficient.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, statefulness, and both parameters adequately. Remaining gaps are minor: the concrete return format of the delta and any failure modes are unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'conference' is described as an optional UrlSegmentName defaulting to all of the user's conferences, and 'acknowledge=false' is explained as a non-advancing peek. The default acknowledge=true behavior is only implied, not stated explicitly.

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 precise verb+resource: 'What changed since the last time get_delta was called', then enumerates the change types (status changes, reviews, submissions). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_submissions and get_reviews, which report current state rather than a delta.

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 real usage context: it is stateful (first call only records a baseline), and 'acknowledge=false peeks without moving the baseline forward.' It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when-not-to-use this tool (e.g. first-time users who want current state should use list_submissions).

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