List change history of a ground

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich detail: append-only, newest-first ordering, actor format (user:<id> vs token:<id>), field-level diff structure, and the explicit exclusion of record_commit events. This gives the agent a clear model of behavior and side-effect profile.

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 dense but every clause adds value: definition, event types, actor/diff format, use case, filtering advice, and an important exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: each event carries actor, summary, and diff for updates. It also covers ordering, event coverage, filtering, and a key exclusion, making the tool's full behavior understandable without external schemas.

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 adds meaningful context by explaining the effect of entityType/entityId filtering ('get a single entity's timeline') and clarifying the semantics of the returned events, going beyond the schema's bare property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the append-only change history (most recent first) of a ground,' and enumerates exact event types (create, update, delete, plan_commit). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_bugs or list_projects, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use it to answer "what changed, when, and by whom"') and provides concrete examples (bug status transitions, node edits). It also gives an exclusion: git commits via record_commit live in node metadata, not here, which prevents mis-selection.

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