changes_since

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key trait of being read-only and indicates incremental behavior since a sequence, but omits pagination behavior, ordering guarantees, handling of unknown/stale sequences, and response shape.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the read-only nature and intended use are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to orientation or usage guidance.

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 a four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is too thin: an agent cannot determine what values to pass for projectRoot or includeStructured, or what the response contains. The description provides motivation but not enough operational detail for correct invocation.

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 schema has four parameters and zero description coverage, and the description only hints at the sequence concept and loosely implies limiting via 'compact read-back.' projectRoot and includeStructured remain entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific read-only operation over graph/checkpoint mutations anchored to a known change sequence. The 'read only' qualifier and incremental-change framing distinguish it from mutation siblings like graph_mutate and graph_patch, though it does not explicitly name a 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?

It explicitly recommends the tool for live synchronization and compact read-back, and contrasts it with reloading the project. It does not list when-not cases or alternative sibling tools, but the intended use context is clear.

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