mutation_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the read-only nature via 'list', details optional filters, notes the default limit, and clarifies the 'since' parameter as an ISO timestamp. This provides useful behavioral context 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by concise filter details. Every word adds value 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?

For a simple read-only tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers purpose, filters, and default behavior, though it lacks explicit return format or pagination details, which would be nice but not critical for this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description compensates by naming all three parameters and providing essential semantics: 'limit' with a default of 50, 'tool' as a filter, and 'since' as an ISO timestamp. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 lists recent mutations from the audit log, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'mutation_rollback' by focusing on listing history rather than performing actions.

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?

The description implies usage for viewing audit log entries but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of relationships to other audit-related tools like 'mutation_rollback'.

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