quipu_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's 'No cursor write' adds a small amount of state-context (paging does not mutate a stored cursor), but it does not explain page size behavior, ordering, or what a page contains. Since search semantics and pagination are left unstated, this is only marginally beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Nothing is padded, though the phrase 'No cursor write' is cryptic without context and the terseness comes at the cost of usability.

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?

There are 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description gives a minimal working context (graph scoping, 'use next_tx for the next page'), which is enough to start paging, but it does not explain `since`, `limit`, or `capture`, and without an output schema the return shape is undocumented.

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 0% and the tool has 4 parameters. The description clarifies only `graph` ('scopes an exact graph'). It explains what `graph` means in context, but leaves `limit`, `since`, and the non-obvious `capture` enum (new_values / old_and_new_values / new_row) completely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 names a verb and resource ('Read whole transaction change pages'), which conveys a paged read of transaction changes. However, 'change pages' is internal jargon and nothing distinguishes this from sibling tools like quipu_transactions or quipu_graph_events, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over those siblings.

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 only routing hint is 'graph scopes an exact graph', which is a scoping note rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over quipu_transactions, quipu_graph_events, or quipu_events, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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