get_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the incremental behavior, versioning mechanism (epoch ms), and the effect of omitting the parameter. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist). Behavior is well-explained.

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 consists of three concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and following with workflow. No extraneous words; every sentence adds essential information.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the versioning pattern, when to get all cells, and the role of the response. No gaps for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes sinceVersion as version from previous response. The description adds workflow context (how to obtain and use the version) and confirms that omitting or 0 returns everything. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 'get only the cells that changed since a given version', specifying a unique verb-resource pair and distinguishing from sibling get_map (which returns the whole map). It also explains the benefit: 'react to other players without re-reading the whole map.'

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 provides a concrete workflow: take version from previous map response, pass it back here. It explains that omitting sinceVersion returns everything. While it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use, the context is clear for incremental updates.

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