list_transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful audit-log context: entries are recent writes, include actor/timestamp/change details, and expose transaction_id as the value consumed by undo_transaction. It does not cover pagination or auth details beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields in the first sentence, then immediately explains the actionable transaction_id and typical use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what entries contain, what the transaction_id is for, and why an agent would call it. No important invocation context is missing.

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%, and the sole parameter is documented in the schema as 'How many, newest first.' The description adds no additional syntax or meaning for limit, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: listing recent writes to the tree, with what changed, when, and by which user. It also links the returned transaction_id to undo_transaction, distinguishing this audit-list tool from the undo action.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: auditing what a bulk pass did and finding the transaction to reverse. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name all alternatives such as get_transaction, so it stops short of a 5.

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