get_recent_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description mentions sorting by recency ('most recently'), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it disclose any auth needs, rate limits, or return format details. The output schema may cover return structure, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 five lines with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by a compact 'Useful for' note and a structured Args list. Every sentence contributes: the first states the action, the second provides usage context, and the Args define parameters. No wasted words.

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 (two optional params, no nested objects, and an output schema present), the description covers the essential context: purpose, parameter semantics, and a use case. It lacks explicit guidance on how the 'entire codebase' scope is determined or what exactly qualifies as a 'fact,' but the output schema likely addresses the latter. The description is nearly complete for this type of list tool.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The Args section fully defines both parameters: 'category' as an optional filter with enumerated values ('behavior', 'design', or 'assumption'), and 'limit' as the number of facts with a default of 10. This goes well beyond the raw schema by providing meaning and allowed values.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get the most recently extracted facts across the entire codebase.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_module_facts (module-specific) and search_codebase (search). The 'recently' qualifier uniquely identifies this tool's role.

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 explicitly states when it's useful: 'for understanding what changed recently or getting an overview of the codebase.' This provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, leaving no exclusions.

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