get_changes

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination with per_page max 100, and the requirement that query must be in double quotes with example syntax. This conveys important usage constraints not visible in the schema. However, it does not mention sorting or default behavior beyond pagination, and 'List' implies a read but no explicit read-only confirmation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is compact and each line adds specific value (page, per_page, query syntax). No wasted words or redundant info.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the three optional parameters and their constraints, making it reasonably complete for a listing tool. It lacks a note on how this tool differs from filter_changes, but the essential behavior is captured.

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. It does for query by explaining the mandatory double-quote format and providing examples, and for per_page by stating the max 100. For page, it simply restates the parameter name ('Page number'), which adds little over the schema title, so not all parameters get equally enriched.

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 'List all changes' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions optional filtering. It distinguishes from get_change_by_id which is for a single change, but does not explicitly distinguish from the similarly-named filter_changes tool, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: pagination parameters and optional query filtering. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of filter_changes or get_change_by_id, but the context implies it is for broad listing with optional filters, which is sufficient.

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