whatsnew

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verbs 'Resume' and 'Montre' strongly imply a read-only summary operation and the dependency on 'dernier reindex' is disclosed. Still, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it mention authorization requirements, performance, or what happens if the index is missing.

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?

Three short French sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's core behavior, the second gives a concrete usage moment, and the third details the output content. The purpose and usage are front-loaded with no 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?

For a simple, optional-parameter, summary-style tool, the description is quite complete: it explains when to run it, what it is based on, and what information it will surface. It only lacks explicit side-effect or error-context details, which would matter more for a mutating tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'since' parameter. The description partially reinforces its meaning by tying the default to the last reindex, but it does not add meaningful details beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific resource and action: it resumes project changes since the last reindex and lists exactly what is shown (modified files, changed signatures, new routes, most active files). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'changelog', which likely overlaps substantially.

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 gives explicit guidance to run this tool at the beginning of a session to understand context. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like changelog or status, which would be even more helpful.

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