get_app_changelog

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does so by specifying the exact contents of the output (every snapshot diff, including label changes, policy revisions, wayback baselines), the chronological ordering, and the inclusion of the triggering event. It stops short of mentioning potential size limits, error conditions, or data availability caveats, but for a read-only get tool, the core behavior is well described.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the main action and then efficiently enumerates what the changelog contains and how it is organized. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise while remaining readable.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value. It thoroughly specifies the output contents (all diff types, chronological order, trigger info), giving the agent a complete picture of what to expect. With full parameter documentation in the schema, nothing else is needed for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The only parameter appId is fully described in the schema as 'The numeric Apple track ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond reinforcing that it identifies 'one app', which is already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics completely.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full privacy changelog for one app', then elaborates with specific content (snapshot diffs, label changes, policy revisions, wayback baselines) and ordering (chronological) plus trigger info. This differentiates it from siblings like get_changelog, which likely covers all apps, by explicitly scoping to a single app.

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 clear context: it is for retrieving a comprehensive changelog for a specific app. It implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when a detailed, chronological history of an app's privacy changes is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The 'for one app' phrasing helps distinguish it from global changelog tools, earning a 4 rather than 3.

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