changes_check_dictionaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool checks for changes and takes no parameters, ignoring return type, side effects, or safety information like read-only nature.

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 short but includes an unnecessary second sentence directing users to tool_help for parameters, which is wasteful given the schema already shows no parameters. Could be more concise.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or list). Given the tool's simplicity, this omission leaves the agent guessing the result format.

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?

There are no parameters (schema has empty properties). The description redundantly states 'takes no parameters', but since schema coverage is 100% and baseline for 0 parameters is 4, the score is appropriate.

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 checks whether Yandex.Direct reference dictionaries (e.g., regions) have changed. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like dictionaries_get (which retrieves) and changes_check_campaigns (campaign-specific).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for checking dictionary change status, but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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