changes_getStatus

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it discloses a non-obvious trait: the status comes from plugin-pushed state over the bridge rather than a live InDesign round-trip, which implies low cost and pushed-state freshness. It still omits the failure mode when the plugin/bridge is absent and does not state the read-only nature explicitly.

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, zero filler, with the mechanism/scope stated first and the parameter guidance second. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned status shape, yet it only implies a changed/unchanged answer without specifying fields (timestamps, ids, counts) or behavior when no document is open. Adequate for choosing the tool, thin for interpreting its result.

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 only 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but `since` is bare. The description compensates by giving its unit (epoch ms) and its decision semantics ('anything changed after that moment'), which is genuinely more than the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('document change activity'), and adds a distinguishing qualifier: the data is 'pushed by the plugin over the bridge — no InDesign round-trip.' That separates it from sibling state-readers like document_getState, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: pass `since` to learn whether anything changed after a moment, 'e.g. to skip re-rendering a preview when nothing changed.' That is actionable context, but there are no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. when to prefer document_getState).

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