snap_change_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered by structured data. The description adds only that events are recorded by 'this server', but says nothing about ordering, retention window, whether the list is truncated, or what constitutes a 'change' versus an 'audit event'.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of detail rather than from ruthless prioritization of necessary content.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition should convey at least the shape of a returned change/audit entry and the ordering guarantee; it does not. It remains minimally viable for a simple read-only feed because annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage — only type and 1-200 bounds with default 20 are machine-readable. The description never mentions that a cap on the number of returned events exists, so the agent gets no semantic framing for the only input it can supply.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Show') and resource ('the most recent changes and audit events'), plus the scope qualifier 'this server recorded', so an agent knows it is a local audit feed rather than an external data fetch. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g. snap_api_get or snap_anomaly_check). The agent must infer from the purpose sentence alone that this is the tool for reviewing recent server-side activity.

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