list_recent_changes

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context about the tables scanned, ordering by 'activity_at', and authentication requirement, which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral details (tables, ordering, authentication). No redundant information is present.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the structure of returned items (e.g., whether they contain full records or just IDs). Given the tool aggregates across multiple tables, more detail about the output format would improve completeness.

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% and both parameters (limit, offset) have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions ordering. With high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'recently changed records across core Neotoma tables', and specifies the scope 'for the authenticated user'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_interpretations or list_observations by aggregating across multiple tables.

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 this tool is for retrieving a recent activity feed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_entity_submissions, list_relationships). No 'when not to use' or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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