whats_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only lookup of release history and explains the special version behaviors (current vs. all), but it does not mention side effects, error cases, prerequisites, or response behavior beyond what the output schema would cover.

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 economical: the core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a focused Args section. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema, so every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter release-notes tool, the description covers the overall purpose, version format, and current/all behavior; the output schema handles return-value details. It could add error behavior for unknown versions, but the basic invocation path is fully specified.

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 only declares version as a string with a default (0% description coverage), while the description fully compensates: it provides a concrete format example ('0.3.0'), explains that omitting the parameter selects the current release, and defines the special value 'all'. This gives the agent exactly the semantic detail needed to call the tool correctly.

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 states that the tool reports release changes ('What changed in this release, and in earlier ones'), clearly identifying the resource as the release history. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'List' or 'Get', and does not differentiate it from siblings such as get_fix_log or sweep_status, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance for the version argument: omit it for the current release or pass 'all' for the whole history. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions, leaving tool-selection context implied rather than stated.

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