list_project_shadow_learner_updates

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that a recorded shadow update never implies an active learner change, production promotion, business value, or permission to act. This adds meaningful context about the absence of side effects and the purely observational nature of the tool. It effectively reinforces the read-only behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no unnecessary detail. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and a key behavioral nuance without ambiguity. The structure is straightforward and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list operation, but it leaves some gaps such as what the receipts contain or how pagination works with the limit parameter. It does not explain what a 'shadow update' or 'rollback receipt' is in this domain, which might confuse an agent. Overall, it provides the minimum context needed but lacks depth.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters project_id and limit, and the description does not compensate by explaining their purpose or expected values. With 0% schema coverage, the tool lacks any parameter guidance. This makes it difficult for an agent to understand how to set the limit or the role of project_id.

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 clearly states the tool reads bounded shadow update and rollback receipts, providing a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that it is a read-only campaign-state projection, which helps distinguish its role. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides some context by noting it is a read-only campaign-state projection, implying it should be used for informational reads rather than actions. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related list tools, nor does it mention alternatives or conditions for selection. This gives moderate guidance but lacks explicit usage criteria.

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