List Change History For Timesheet

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

The description claims to create records (POST, HTTP 201), which is a mutating operation. However, the tool name suggests a read-only list operation. Annotations set readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, which does not clarify the discrepancy. The description fails to disclose the true behavior and contradicts the tool's name.

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 short but contains repetitive and contradictory statements (returns vs creates). This lack of clarity undermines conciseness, as every sentence does not contribute useful information.

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 completely inadequate. It does not clarify the actual operation (list vs create), does not explain return values (no output schema), and fails to resolve the contradiction between name and description. An AI agent cannot reliably use this tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the required parameters. It does not explain the format of the 'ids' array or provide examples, but baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first states it returns change history but then contradicts by claiming it creates new Field Productivity records and returns the created object with HTTP 201. This ambiguity makes the actual purpose unclear and misleading.

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 offers minimal guidance: 'Use this to perform the list change action on Field Productivity records.' It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'change_history' or 'list_change_history_for_a_generic_tool_item', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond required parameters.

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