get_trends

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It only states the general purpose and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data source is used, how the output is structured, or any limitations. This lack of transparency leaves the agent guessing about side effects or expectations.

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 a single, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

As a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but leaves gaps: it does not indicate the nature of the output (e.g., a report, chart, or list), the time range covered, or any prerequisites. For a tool of this complexity, a bit more context would improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.

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 input schema has one parameter, projectPath, with a clear description ('Path to the project'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic detail, which is acceptable at the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('See') and clearly identifies the resource and scope: code quality trends over time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_quality or get_quick_wins by focusing on temporal progression, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for tracking how code quality changes over time, which suggests using this tool when historical context is needed rather than a one-time snapshot. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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