Change log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context on what kinds of changes are tracked and that old/new values are both present, but it says nothing about ordering beyond the schema's 'newest entries' note, pagination, or whether the log is session-scoped.

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?

A single informative sentence with no filler, and the content scope is front-loaded. It is a noun fragment without a verb, which is efficient but slightly less directive than a full statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both optional parameters are documented in the schema. The main omission is usage context and the relationship to the revert/restore siblings, but for a read-only viewer the description is nearly complete.

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% for both parameters (limit, session), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline-3 expectation.

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 names the resource (recorded changes) and enumerates the four content categories it covers (file keys, workspace variables, model parameters, GUI settings), plus the old/new value pairing. It is clear what data the tool surfaces, but it never states an explicit retrieval verb and does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like cm_log or cm_revert_all.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as cm_log or the revert/restore tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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