Änderungshistorie durchsuchen

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, indicating safe read operation. Description adds that it shows creation/modification/deletion timestamps. No contradictions, but it does not elaborate on pagination or response structure.

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 well-structured: purpose statement first, then a categorized list of applications, then examples. It is somewhat lengthy due to the list, but front-loads the key 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions 'shows when documents were created, modified, or deleted' but omits details about result fields, pagination, or formatting. This is a gap.

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 parameter details are already in the schema. The description adds value by grouping applications into categories and providing example queries, which helps agents understand usage beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Search document change history' and explains it tracks changes to legal documents over time. It is distinct from sibling tools like ris_dokument or ris_judikatur, which focus on specific document types or categories.

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 says 'Use this tool to track changes' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other tasks. It provides examples and lists applications, but lacks exclusion criteria.

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