changes_since

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does explicitly state 'Read only,' which clarifies the safe mutation profile. It also implies incremental behavior via 'after a known change sequence.' However, it does not disclose response format, pagination/limit behavior, error conditions, or what 'mutations' includes, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The operation is stated first, followed by the usage context. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only provides a high-level use case and one parameter hint. It doesn't explain which parameters are needed for common scenarios, what the return payload looks like, or how 'known change sequence' maps to the sequence field. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly based solely on this description.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. The phrase 'after a known change sequence' hints at the 'sequence' parameter, but the other five parameters (limit, projectRoot, taskContextId, includeStructured, sourceSyncRevision) receive no explanation. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently supply correct parameter 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read only graph/checkpoint mutations after a known change sequence.' This makes the core operation understandable. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling tool, only contrasting with 'reloading the project' rather than a specific sibling.

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 second sentence gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for live synchronization and compact read-back instead of reloading the project.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool. It stops short of a full 5 because it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly compare with siblings like source_sync or timeline_sync.

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