See what changed between knowledge pack releases

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral traits: 'Read-only, offline, deterministic.' It also explains what counts as a 'changed scenario' (route, auth, headers, request fields, response shape, constraints) and clarifies the tool's relationship to Microsoft Learn. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function; the second explains use case; the third provides alternatives; final sentence gives safety traits. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return format. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, parameter interplay, and behavioral traits. For a moderate-complexity tool with good schema/annotations, this is complete.

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% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by suggesting a use case: 'Combine with `since` to ask whether one operation moved,' and discloses error behavior: 'A version with no recorded release comes back as ok:false listing the versions that do exist.' This goes 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the scenarios added, changed, or removed across releases of this pack, newest first.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming alternatives (pc_whats_new, pc_get_scenario) and stating what this tool uniquely provides ('closest thing here to an API changelog').

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use it to find out what moved since the version you last built against.' It gives clear exclusions and alternatives: 'For deprecations and enforcement deadlines use pc_whats_new instead; for one scenario's current detail use pc_get_scenario.' This is unambiguous guidance.

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