get_recent_updates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, so the description does not need to re-assert those. The description adds valuable context: it returns a 'summary' with 'detailed breakdown by item type', which is beyond structural annotations. This informs the agent about the output format without contradicting any annotations.

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 a single sentence of 18 words that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (3 optional parameters, clear annotations, and an expected output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It covers the what and the time scope. Additional details about 'item type' or structure could be helpful but are not critical, as the output schema likely provides that.

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 covers all three parameters (project_id, days_back, limit) with 100% description coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 per the rubric.

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's purpose: 'Get a summary of recent updates and changes in the last N days, with detailed breakdown by item type'. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('summary of recent updates/changes'), and differentiates from sibling list tools (e.g., list_activities) by emphasizing 'summary' and 'detailed breakdown by item type'.

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 the tool is for retrieving recent updates but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like list_activities or list_comments. There is no guidance on when not to use it or mention of prerequisites, making the usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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