List change tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that returned tasks include author, technician, and group names, which is a useful hint about output content, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational details. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that wastes no words. It states the purpose and the enriched fields efficiently.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does and what extra fields are included, and no critical calling information is missing.

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'List' and resource 'tasks for a change', and names the enriched fields (author, technician, group names). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like glpi_list_ticket_tasks and glpi_list_problem_tasks, which target different ITIL objects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as glpi_list_change_followups or glpi_get_change. The description only implies usage by stating it lists tasks for a change; it does not provide when/when-not conditions.

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