List change followups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields and the description carries a lower burden. The only added behavioral detail is that the author's name (user_name) is included in the payload, which is modest but real 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource and the one non-obvious output detail are all packed into it without waste.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not repeat return values or risk semantics. It is adequate for a simple listing call, though a note on the difference from the ticket/problem followup listers would have closed the remaining 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 description coverage is 100% with all five parameters documented (range, fields, format, changeId, expand_dropdowns), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List followups of a change') and clarifies what a followup is (a comment), which is genuinely useful for an agent unfamiliar with GLPI terminology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-neighbours glpi_list_followups and glpi_list_problem_followups, but the scope word 'change' makes the target object unambiguous.

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 and no routing to alternatives. With siblings glpi_list_followups, glpi_list_problem_followups, glpi_list_timeline and glpi_add_change_followup in the toolset, the agent must infer the intended context entirely from the name.

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