List changes

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description only needs incremental context. It adds that results are sorted most-recently-updated first by default and that dropdown values (status/priority/category names) come back localized in the GLPI user's language, which is genuinely useful behavior not in 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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, then the default ordering and return-field details. Nothing is wasted, though the clause about localized names is somewhat dense.

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?

With a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description carries enough to call the tool correctly. The one gap is routing guidance versus sibling list/search/get tools, which is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness failure.

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 six parameters (sort, order, range, fields, format, expand_dropdowns) are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is there. The baseline of 3 applies, with the language note bleeding slightly into return semantics covered by the output 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 clear verb (List) and resource (change management items), and specifies default ordering plus the named fields returned (status_name, priority_name, category_name). This is enough to separate it from glpi_list_problems and glpi_list_tickets, but it never explicitly names a sibling or scoping boundary as the strongest definitions do.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'by default' ordering note; there is no statement of when to prefer this over glpi_search, glpi_get_change (single item), or other listing tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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