list_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that action defaults to everything except plain no-ops, that module includes nested modules, that address globs treat brackets literally, and that results are capped. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive behavior, permission requirements, or pagination behavior beyond 'capped'.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then compactly lists filter semantics with no filler. Each line adds useful information, and the structure is easy for an agent to scan.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves important gaps around the required path argument, limit/offset usage, and sibling differentiation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for seven parameters. It meaningfully explains action, type, module, and address semantics, including defaults and glob rules, but it leaves the required path parameter and the limit/offset pagination parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List resource changes', and adds the scope 'filtered and capped'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from siblings such as risky_changes or plan_summary.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives among the sibling tools. It documents filters and default behavior, but an agent must infer when this listing tool is preferable to plan_summary, risky_changes, or diff_resource.

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