get_recent_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting defaults (e.g., 90 days, limit 10), sort order, return format, or whether folders are included. This is comparable to the mid-tier 'update_drive' example, which also scored 2 for missing such context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core purpose while staying appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply more context but doesn't. It fails to explain what 'recently modified' means (timeframe, file types), whether it returns paths or content, or how the result is structured. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters and the tool description doesn't contradict or mislead.

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 'Get recently modified files in the vault' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('recently modified files'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_files_in_vault or get_vault_structure. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligns with the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or list_files_in_vault. The description provides no context for choosing this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of use cases.

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