changelog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only display via 'Montre', but it does not mention whether a prior reindex is required, how the diff is formatted, or any edge cases. It is not contradictory, just minimal.

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, structurally clean sentence. It front-loads the core action ('Diff lisible') and then lists the specific content covered. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool displays and the relevant timeframe. It doesn't describe the output format, but with no output schema and a clear 'readable diff' concept, it is likely enough for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description doesn't need to explain them.

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 function: it shows a readable diff between the old and new index, listing specifically files, exports, routes, and types that were added/removed/modified. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like whatsnew or status, the focus on 'diff' and 'reindex' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'depuis le dernier reindex' implies the tool is useful after a reindex to inspect changes, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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