get_changelog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the row semantics (single change event with app context) and mentions pagination, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering behavior. The description adds some useful context beyond the schema but is not fully transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds row-level detail and capability highlights. Every clause earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear picture of the output (rows of change events) and available filters. It does not explain ordering or default time window, but the schema covers most parameter details. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a read-only list tool, though a bit more detail on sorting or return structure would be helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description merely lists the filter dimensions (app, time window, type, category) and pagination without adding new meaning or clarifying parameter formats or interactions, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('universal privacy changelog across every tracked app'), and the phrase 'universal' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_app_changelog', which is likely per-app. It also enumerates the event types in each row, removing ambiguity about what is returned.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Get the universal privacy changelog') and mentions filtering by app, time window, type, and category, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_app_changelog'. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so while the context is clear, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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