get_issue_changes_summary

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

The description implies a read-only operation (getting a summary), which is clear. However, without annotations, it doesn't explicitly state that it's non-destructive or mention any edge cases (e.g., behavior for invalid issue_id). Overall, it conveys the core behavior adequately.

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 extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by a structured args list. Every sentence provides value with no repetition or fluff.

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 existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose and all parameters. Minor omissions like handling of empty results or limits are acceptable for a summary 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: issue_id (Issue ID or URL), since (ISO date filter with example), instance (YouTrack instance). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 the tool returns a compact summary of issue changes including state transitions, comments, and time logged. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue_history (full history) and get_work_items (work items only).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for a quick overview while get_issue_history might provide more detail. The 'compact summary' qualifier implies it, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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