List recent changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the log is capped at 200 changes, starts empty after a world reload, and entries indicate whether they can be undone and why not. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a compact three-sentence definition with the core purpose first, followed by entry contents and log retention behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the caller receives: entries with timestamp, Gamemaster, tool, documents, undo status, entry id, and tool call id. It also notes log boundaries and session behavior, making the tool's behavior understandable without an output schema.

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 input schema already explains tool, limit, callId, and document filters. The description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, keeping it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and names the exact resource (changes from the AI's change log of this session), with sorting and content details (newest first, by Gamemaster, tool, documents, undoneness). It also distinguishes this from the undo-change sibling by stating entries carry tool call ids for undo-change.

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 gives clear context about when this is useful: to review session changes, including undo eligibility and ids for undo-change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended role relative to undo-change is strongly implied.

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