get_changelog

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses meaningful behavior: default ordering, the special limit=0 behavior, tie-breaking by entry id, and the human-readable nature of field changes. This gives the agent a real sense of what happens during pagination and output without needing to guess.

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?

Three sentences carry high informational density with no filler: purpose first, then ordering semantics, pagination behavior, and output nature. Each sentence earns its place and the most actionable details are front-loaded.

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, paginated listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the required resource, defines the two pagination parameters and edge cases, and tells the agent what entries contain. An agent can call this tool correctly without further inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining order values ('desc' vs 'asc'), how start_at/limit paginate the sorted collection, and the meaning of limit=0. issue_key is implied by 'an issue's field-change history' and by its schema title, so all parameters are effectively covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List an issue's field-change history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue and get_comments, which retrieve current state or comments rather than history. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clearly establishes the context for use—when you need an issue's field-change history—and the detailed pagination semantics helps the agent invoke it correctly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but among the siblings its niche is distinct enough that the context is sufficient.

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