get_recent_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the identifier resolution priority (project_id > workspace_path > project_name). However, it does not describe what the returned changes look like (since no output schema exists), error behavior, or whether the changes are scoped to the current session. The read-only nature is implicit but not explicitly stated.

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 well-structured with clear sections (opening statement, lookup behavior, priority, WHEN TO USE, RECOMMENDED). It is relatively concise for the amount of guidance it provides, though the WHEN TO USE list has some thematic redundancy (e.g., 'At the start of a session' and 'After being away' overlap). The main purpose is 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the lookup and usage guidance well. However, it does not explain the structure or contents of the returned 'recent changes' list, nor does it describe the architecture_impact_filter parameter in more detail beyond the schema. An agent would still need to infer what fields each change includes, which is a notable gap.

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 already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how the project identifiers interact: the priority order for resolution. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions and helps the agent understand which parameters to provide and how they are handled when combined.

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 function: 'Retrieve recent changes made to a project for context and continuity.' It uses a specific verb and resource. It also describes flexible project lookup with identifier priority, which helps define its scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_project_info or get_context_history, though the WHEN TO USE list provides some differentiation.

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 includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section with six concrete scenarios (e.g., 'At the start of a session', 'Before making changes', 'To check if another agent has been working on the same files') and a strong 'RECOMMENDED' call for resuming work. This gives explicit context for usage, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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