treeflow_list_change_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the operation is read-only through 'Obtiene' and outlines the data shape (actor, modified object, timestamp). However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or any other operational details, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and target, then expands with the key output dimensions. There is no redundant wording and every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter listing tool, the description plus complete schema is sufficient for correct invocation: pass tree_id, optionally limit, and expect audit records with who/what/when. It could mention ordering explicitly, but this is a minor omission rather than a critical 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions: tree_id is the bot/tree ID and limit has a default of 50. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond broadly referring to 'del bot', which aligns with tree_id, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and a precise resource ('historial de auditoría de cambios del bot'), and details the returned information: who modified which node, intent, configuration, or entity, and when. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like treeflow_list_training_history, which focuses on training history rather than audit changes.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs an audit trail of bot changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as treeflow_list_training_history. There is no misleading guidance, but the routing must be inferred from the phrase 'historial de auditoría'.

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