Detect changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that detection is based on log patterns themselves (no CI/CD), which is useful behavioral context but does not cover return format or performance.

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 that efficiently conveys the detection targets and the key differentiator (log-based, no CI/CD). Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a read-only detection tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is detected and how. It could mention the shape of the output (e.g., list of change events), but the purpose and mechanism are clear.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or filtering guidance, leaving the baseline score.

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 states a specific detection task: finding deploys and restarts in logs via version field changes, host rollouts, and start/stop lines. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like compare_periods or error_summary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The only contextual note is 'No CI/CD integration needed,' which is a feature, not usage guidance; an agent must infer that this tool is for log-based change detection.

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