get_issue_changelog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is chronological and includes author and timestamp, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only (though implied by 'return'). This is adequate but not rich.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds detail about the return structure, and the third provides a use case. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences, but overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the changelog contains, the order, who made changes, and gives an example. Since an output schema exists, no need to describe return fields in detail. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 description for the sole parameter 'issue' already explains the expected format with an example. The description adds an example call, but it is largely redundant with the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 returns change history for a given issue key, specifying the exact fields (status, assignee, severity edits). This is a specific verb+resource combination, and no sibling tool covers changelog retrieval, so it is well distinguished.

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 mentions it is 'Useful for auditing issue lifecycle or understanding how an issue was resolved,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no sibling tool offers changelog functionality, this is sufficient for a strong score.

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