get_recent_merged_changes

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

Description indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieves'), and mentions compatibility with Git and Jujutsu. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it adequately conveys safe, non-destructive behavior.

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 short paragraphs and a parameter list, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 no output schema, description could detail return format or sort order. However, for a simple retrieval tool with 2 params, it covers the essential: what, when, and parameters. Minor gap on output structure.

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 coverage, description adds essential meaning: 'directory' is absolute path and required, 'count' is number of changes with default 10. Clearly explains each parameter beyond type info.

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?

Clearly states verb ('Retrieves') and specific resource ('recent committed/merged changes') with scope ('made by you in this project'). Differentiates from sibling tools which are about context and lessons.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'pull historical code patterns, review modifications, and study successful merges.' No explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but context is clear given sibling tools have different purposes.

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