schema_change_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns structured JSON (no UI), describes the three view modes, and notes that the endpoint parameter only applies to view=entity. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or what side effects (if any) might occur, leaving some ambiguity.

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 information-dense but each sentence adds value: it starts with a clear summary, then details each view and the relationship to visualize_schema_graph. It could be slightly better formatted but remains within a reasonable length.

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?

The description gives a high-level view of the output (nodes+edges+change counts) and explains the main parameters. However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully specify the return structure, and details like limit semantics and change-activity count definitions are absent. Still, the 'same data as visualize_schema_graph' reference provides useful context.

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 description enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema by explaining how view and object_name interact: view=entity focuses on an entity, view=permission on permission scopes, and view=role for comparing roles. It also clarifies that omitting focus_object yields an overview and that endpoint only applies to entity view, which the schema doesn't convey. The limit and since parameters remain largely described by the schema.

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 clearly states the tool outputs a structured JSON graph with change-activity counts and explicitly differentiates from visualize_schema_graph by noting it provides the same data without rendering. It also defines three views and focus_object semantics, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance for each view: use role view to compare role capabilities, and suggests omitting focus_object for an overview. It also notes the difference from visualize_schema_graph, implying when to choose this tool over the visualization sibling, though it doesn't mention other change-related alternatives.

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