Get List Changes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses the type of changes reported and optional filters, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, response format, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence that packs purpose, scope, and filtering options. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, no need to describe return values. The description covers scope and intent well, but omits behavioral details like pagination limits that are only partially in the schema.

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 parameters are already well-documented. Description adds context on date range and list scoping, but doesn't add format or usage details beyond schema 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?

Specific verb 'audit' plus concrete actions (created, renamed, archived, unarchived) and scope ('on a board', date range, single list). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_board_actions and get_list_flow.

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?

Labels itself the 'main structural audit tool', indicating primary use for list lifecycle events. Implies when to use, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_board_actions.

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