what_changed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (creates a timeline) without revealing whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, how it handles missing parameters, or what happens when no changes exist. For an incident tool, this is a notable gap, though the implied read-only nature is weak evidence.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded ('One timeline...') and a memorable usage tagline ('The first question in any incident'). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with only 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary function. However, it does not clarify that parameters are optional (required parameters: 0) or how the tool behaves without a namespace, nor does it mention the return format. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but could be improved with a note about scope and defaults.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already documents all three parameters (since, service, namespace) with their meanings and examples. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 it provides a timeline of changes (rollouts, scaling, HPA actions, etc.) and positions it as the first question in an incident. It is specific about the resource (a timeline) and the verb (what changed). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_rollout_history or get_events, which cover overlapping types of changes, so it loses a point.

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 phrase 'The first question in any incident' gives clear context for when to use it (initial triage) but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives for deeper investigation. There is no explicit exclusion or guidance on how it relates to sibling tools, so it relies on the agent inferring that other tools handle specifics.

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