List changelog entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: default filtering to published entries and the meaning of the status values including scheduled entries in 'all'. This helps the agent predict results accurately.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently adds the key behavioral nuance about status filtering without repeating schema details.

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 description is largely complete for a simple read-only listing tool: it states the resource, default filtering, and how to use status. It does not mention pagination semantics for per_page or return value shape, but the schema bounds and tool name make those less critical.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates by explaining the status parameter's default and allowed behaviors. The type and per_page parameters rely on their self-explanatory enums and numeric bounds, and project_id already has a helpful schema description pointing to list_projects.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — "List changelog entries for a project" — which clearly states what the tool does. It naturally differentiates from siblings like get_entry (singular), create_entry, update_entry, publish_entry, and list_projects.

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 gives clear operational context by explaining the default behavior — only live published entries — and how to request drafts or all entries via the status parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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