get-component-changelog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it mentions the tool lists changelogs, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns full or partial changelogs, how it handles invalid component names, if there are rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two clear usage scenarios. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific contexts. While efficient, the second scenario sentence is somewhat lengthy but still earns its place by providing valuable context.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks critical information about parameters, return values, and behavioral constraints. For a tool with this complexity level, more comprehensive documentation is needed.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention the 'componentName' parameter at all. While it implies a component is needed ('特定组件'), it provides no guidance on parameter format, valid values, or semantics. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '列出 Ant Design 特定组件的更新日志' (list changelog for specific Ant Design components), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-component-docs' or 'list-components', which might also provide component-related information but for different purposes.

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 description provides explicit usage scenarios: '用户询问特定组件的更新日志' (when users ask about specific component changelogs) and '在知道用户 antd 版本的情况下...来决定是否需要升级依赖' (when knowing the user's antd version to decide if dependency upgrade is needed for functionality). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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