glpi_search_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination and filtering, but does not disclose return format, default limits, error behavior, or whether it's read-only (though 'search/list' implies read). It doesn't contradict annotations since none are present, but it's minimal.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently mentions pagination and filters without unnecessary words. However, it could have included a bit more context about RSQL syntax, but it's appropriate for a simple search tool.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the essentials (search, pagination, filter) but lacks details on how the filter works, examples, or expected results. For a simple tool with good schema coverage, it's minimally complete but could be improved.

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 base is 3. The description adds minimal value by stating pagination (start, limit) and filter in RSQL, which aligns with the schema. It doesn't add details like parameter formats beyond what's in the schema, but it repeats the key concepts.

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 the tool searches and lists changes ('Busca e lista changes'), using specific verbs and a resource. It distinguishes from siblings like glpi_search_tickets and glpi_search_problems by the resource name, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from glpi_get_change, but the listing/listing aspect is implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions pagination and filters, but doesn't state when to prefer this over glpi_get_change or glpi_search_* for other entities. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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