get_block_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the function returns current block field snapshots rather than historical snapshots, warns that deleted is currently always emptyhol and requires historical snapshot comparison, and flags that include_markdown=true significantly increases response size.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then organized into compact sections for applicable scenarios, sibling distinction, caveats, and parameter details. Each section adds distinct value, and the only repeated idea — no before/after — is used to reinforce the central differentiation from get_block_diffs.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly. It addresses invocation-time concerns such as time format, optional parameters, default limits, return contents, and the deleted-block limitation, leaving no critical call-blocking gap.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters. It provides the exact datetime format for start_time and end_time, marks end_time as optional, states the default and meaning of limit, and explains include_markdown with a payload-size caveat.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair — querying content blocks added or modified within a time range. It explicitly differentiates itself from get_block_diffs by stating it does not perform snapshot comparison or return before/after values, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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?

A dedicated '适用场景' section says to use this tool when only a change list/index is needed and per-block before/after diffs are not. It also names get_block_diffs as the alternative and clearly states the functional distinction, making both when-to-use and when-not-to-use explicit rather than left to inference.

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