list_privilege_timeline_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description usefully adds which event categories are returned (gain/loss/activation), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or truncation behavior tied to the limit parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint (period) is stated immediately. It is efficient, though too terse to carry the parameter burden the schema leaves open.

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?

Four undocumented parameters, no output schema, no enums, and no sibling routing are all left unexplained. The one sentence covers the basic idea but is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly with action/provider/limit combinations.

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% for all four parameters (days, limit, action, provider). The description only indirectly hints at the time window ('período informado') and the event types that the action filter likely controls; it adds nothing about limit (default 200) or provider.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lista eventos de ganho/perda/ativação de privilégios') and scopes it to a time period, so the purpose is unambiguous. It offers no differentiation from closely named siblings such as get_identity_privilege_timeline or summarize_privilege_timeline, and the Portuguese phrasing mismatches the English tool ecosystem.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the timeline siblings (get_identity_privilege_timeline, summarize_privilege_timeline, export_privilege_timeline_report). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the phrase 'no período informado'.

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