List Forms change log

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are capped at the configured item cap unless limit is supplied, and results span pages. It still says nothing about the shape of returned events or ordering behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the payload, the second states the cap/limit rule. No filler, and the identifying content is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys what each event contains and that pagination/capping applies, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of describing the response envelope or the default ordering, but those are minor given the full schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, ordering, and survey_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces the limit/cap interaction and adds no new semantics for ordering or the required form id; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource precisely — the change log of a form — and enumerates what each entry carries (who, which part, when). That is enough to separate it from sibling list tools like forms_answers_list or forms_questions_list, though it never explicitly names an alternative or states the verb 'list'.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as forms_surveys_get or tracker_changelog_list. The intended use (auditing changes to a form) must be inferred entirely from the noun phrase.

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