List Checklist Schedule Change Histories

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the HTTP method (GET), response format (paginated JSON array), required parameters, and pagination metadata. There is 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 concise sentences: purpose, usage, and technical details. It is front-loaded with the core function, contains no fluff, and efficiently communicates essential 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 refers to the output as 'a paginated JSON array of Inspections,' but the tool is about change histories, not inspections themselves. This creates potential confusion about the data being returned. Additionally, there is no output schema to clarify the response structure, so the description should be more precise about the nature of the returned items. The inconsistency undermines completeness for an AI agent.

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%, so the description adds limited value over the schema. It explains that 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination, which reinforces the schema descriptions but does not introduce new information. This is adequate for a baseline score of 3.

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 it 'Lists Checklist Schedule Change Histories' with required parameters (project_id, schedule_id), making the verb and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'show_change_history' and 'list_of_budget_change_histories' by specifying the exact entity and scope.

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 explicit use cases: 'enumerate Inspections when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also mentions pagination controls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'show_change_history' tool for a single record.

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