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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the return shape (kind, from/to values, actor, createdAt), the actor variants (user, api_key, system), the limitation that older edits predate recording, and pagination behavior. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then progressively adds kinds, actor details, exclusions, and pagination. It is a single dense paragraph but every sentence carries information (event kinds, exclusions, history boundary, pagination), so little is wasted despite the length.

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 and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and constraints — and it does: event kinds, from/to representations, actor types, createdAt, the history boundary, and pagination. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage meaning for cursor ('Pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page'), which links the output field to the input parameter and is not stated in the schema. pageSize and actionId semantics are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (who changed an action's fields) and enumerates the exact fields tracked (title, owner, channels, description, published pages) with an explicit ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes itself from devtune_get_actions by excluding lifecycle moves, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not with an alternative: lifecycle moves (accepting, going live, archiving) are not events and must be read from devtune_get_actions. It also warns that history only begins when recording started, setting expectations. It lacks a positive 'use this when...' framing, but the exclusion routing is clear.

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