get_changelog

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds substantial behavior beyond these: it explains the default order, pagination tie-breaking by entry id, limit=0 behavior, and that entries are human-readable. This enriches the agent's understanding of edge cases and return content.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically explains ordering, pagination, and output content. No sentence is redundant; every clause contributes to correct usage.

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's moderate complexity (sorting, pagination) and the existence of an output schema (which presumably details the return structure), the description covers all behavioral aspects needed to call the tool correctly. It is complete without needing to enumerate return fields.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the non-obvious parameters: order (desc/asc), start_at and limit pagination semantics, and limit=0 special case. issue_key is self-explanatory. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's defaults and types.

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 lists an issue's field-change history, a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_issue or search_issues, which focus on current state or search, not history.

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 detailed usage instructions for ordering and pagination (order, start_at, limit semantics including limit=0 meaning no cap). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and the guidance is clear for correct invocation.

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