fleet_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that live:true probes the host and that journal entries are appended alongside the diff, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, cost/latency of live probing, or result shape. Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The nested parentheses around `since` and `live:true` make it slightly dense to parse but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover behavior and returns. It conveys the conceptual output (diff plus journal) but omits output format, volume expectations, and the safety/cost profile of probing hosts, leaving gaps for a zero-required-param reporting 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `since` semantics ('first one after since') and the live:true meaning, but this largely duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions rather than adding format or edge-case detail.

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 opening clause 'What changed on hosts: diff of recorded snapshots' names the resource and the mechanism precisely, and the journal addendum clarifies the combined report nature. It implies but never explicitly names the siblings it overlaps with (snapshots_list, journal_list), 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?

It enumerates the operating modes (latest vs previous, vs the first snapshot after `since`, vs the live host) and states when live:true is warranted ('catches changes made by hand since'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, keeping it below 5.

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