vibemap_list_changesets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. The description adds that every write is wrapped in a changeset and explains the effect of includeOps parameter. It also discloses the ordering (most recent first) and the per-changeset op count, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first introduces the core function and key feature, second adds usage context and optional parameter. Every sentence is informative and well-structured, front-loading the essential purpose.

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 description thoroughly covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, parameter details (including defaults and ranges), and what the output contains (changesets with op count, optionally with inline ops). For a read-only list tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is complete and sufficient for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: limit specifies range and default, projectId identifies project, and includeOps explains what inlining operations does. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, adding value for the agent.

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 it lists changesets for a VibeMap project, ordered most recent first, with a per-changeset operation count. The verb 'list' and resource 'changesets' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like vibemap_list_projects or vibemap_list_features.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: seeing changesets from own edits, auditing changes, or reviewing edit history. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context is clear and helpful for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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