timeline_natural_language_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of how questions are interpreted, whether results are ranked/paginated, or any limits on query scope.

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 wasted words, but it is so terse that conciseness comes at the cost of substance. Adequate minimum-viable brevity rather than efficient completeness.

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 natural-language query tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and several closely related siblings, the description is too thin. It omits what the returned timeline contains, how to phrase questions, and how it differs from the other *_natural_language_query tools.

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%, so the schema documents neither 'question' nor 'limit'. The description only implies that 'question' takes natural language; it never explains the 'limit' parameter (default 20, presumably result count) or the expected question format.

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 ('Interpreta') and resource ('perguntas de auditoria temporal de privilégios em linguagem natural'), which scopes it to the timeline/privilege-audit domain rather than generic querying. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the four sibling natural-language query tools (pim_, iam_, agent_, graph_answer_), leaving domain boundaries partly to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as iam_natural_language_query or pim_natural_language_query. The agent must guess which NL-query tool fits a given question from the name alone.

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