unmanned_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals what the tool emits (revisions, facts, retractions), the ordering (newest first), and the recommendation to poll before mutations, which implies a read-only history snapshot. It does not describe response structure or pagination, but the core behavior is transparent enough for selecting and invoking it safely.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the main usage rule and parameter directive. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

For an optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, this description provides enough surrounding context to select and invoke it correctly: content categories, ordering, and the strategic use-before-write purpose. It does not detail the exact return shape, but makes mention of what will be included makes the boundary sufficiently clear.

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 only parameter, since_ms, receives a description-less schema yet the tool description says 'Pass since_ms to see only what's new to you.' That conveys that the integer is a uniqueness cursor or time marker in milliseconds, adding genuine meaning beyond the bare schema type and minimum.

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 defines the tool as a change/history listing: it shows revisions, facts, and retractions, sorted newest first. It also frames it as a pre-write checkpoint, which distinguishes it from page-reading and registration siblings by making the resource and intent specific.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call it: poll this list before writing so you build on the current state and do not repeat or clobber it. It also tells the caller how to use since_ms for incremental retrieval. It does not enumerate alternative tools or exclusion cases, but for this narrow helper tool that is not a significant gap.

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