Change History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating it returns a paginated JSON array and includes pagination metadata, which goes beyond the annotations. 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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose. It includes essential details (pagination, required param, endpoint) without unnecessary verbosity. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete for a read-only list tool. It covers purpose, required param, pagination, and record type. No output schema exists, but that's acceptable as the description mentions the response format.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds context by explaining that page and per_page control pagination and that the response includes metadata, which augments the schema descriptions.

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 retrieves change history for timecard entries, specifically Field Productivity records. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the endpoint and field, but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling 'list_change_history_for_timesheet'.

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 explains to use this tool to read Field Productivity records and provides pagination guidance (page, per_page). However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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