ise_dc_view_change_configuration_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does not disclose behavior traits such as pagination behavior, whether filtering requires exact column names, how LIMIT interacts with results, or what the output format is. The days_back parameter references 'the view's time column' in the schema but the description doesn't explain the returned data structure or any quirks. For a report tool, it lacks disclosure about default behavior (e.g., does it return all rows if limit is omitted?).

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 single sentence, which is concise, but it is somewhat under-specified - it is essentially just repeating the title and listing columns. The front-loading is fine, but it could include more useful information without much length cost, such as noting it reflects recent configuration changes or how the audit differs from administrator logins.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and the description is minimal. Given the complexity (multiple filter/order/limit parameters), the description should provide more guidance on the semantics of the report (what configuration audit data represents, how it relates to administrator actions) and what the returned rows look like. The column list helps but the lack of behavioral and output context leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, meaning each of the 7 parameters already has a description in the schema. The tool description lists the filterable columns (ID, TIMESTAMP_TIMEZONE, etc.), which is valuable because it tells the agent which columns are valid filter_column/order_by values. The parameter_semantics baseline is therefore 3, and this column list does add some value beyond the schema by enumerating valid filter targets.

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 title '[Report] Change Configuration Audit' combined with the description 'Displays the configuration audit data' clearly identifies this as a report/view tool for viewing configuration audit records. It lists the filterable columns which adds specificity. However, it doesn't strongly distinguish itself from sibling report tools beyond the specific 'Change Configuration Audit' name, though the column list does help differentiate.

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 states it displays configuration audit data but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. Among the ise_dc_view_* report tools (radius auth, tacacs, endpoints, administrator logins, etc.), the name implies this is for configuration changes specifically, but the description doesn't explicitly call out scenarios or contrast with ise_dc_view's more generic query mechanism. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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