List Requested Changes For A Schedule Or A Task

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 specifying the return format (paginated JSON array with metadata) and the API endpoint, beyond what annotations provide.

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 mostly concise, but includes redundant details like the full API version and category, which could be omitted. It front-loads the purpose effectively.

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 covers the return type, pagination metadata, required parameter, and basic usage. It is adequate for a read-only tool with good annotations, though optional parameters could use more context.

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 description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that 'project_id' is required and explaining pagination control via 'page' and 'per_page', supplementing the schema.

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 lists requested changes for a Schedule or Task, with specific verb and resource. It provides context for enumeration, pagination, and filtering. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_requested_changes'.

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 suggests using the tool for paginated overviews and filtering, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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