Get Changelog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the limit/return behavior context (default 20, max 100). No contradictions. Since the annotation set is strong, a 3 is appropriate—description adds limit semantics but little else.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Could arguably be longer given the tool has an output schema and could mention return structure, but for a simple list tool it is appropriately concise and efficient.

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?

The tool is a simple changelog listing with one optional parameter. Output schema exists (noted in context signals), so return values don't need explanation. Annotations fully cover safety and idempotency. The description is complete for the tool's low complexity.

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%—the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with default and max values. The description repeats the same limit default/max info, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource ('Get recent platform changelog') and enumerates content types (new threats, detections, features). It distinguishes from siblings like get_roadmap and get_daily_intel_bundle by focusing on changelog specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Clear purpose overall.

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 when to use it (to see recent platform changes), but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or references to alternative tools like get_roadmap or get_daily_intel_bundle. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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