listRecentChanges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List recent changes' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'change' (e.g., edits, additions). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, rate limits, return format (e.g., list of change objects), or error handling. For a tool that likely returns complex data, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a default scope ('across all projects'), which is already suggested by the tool name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent changes across all projects in Weblate', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getChangesByUser' or 'getProjectChanges', which appear to be more targeted versions of similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getChangesByUser' (user-specific) and 'getProjectChanges' (project-specific), the agent must infer that this tool is for cross-project changes without explicit comparison or exclusion statements.

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