List changes

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 the workflow context (results carry an actor credential name usable by undo_changes), but says nothing about result shape, ordering guarantees beyond the schema's 'newest first', or whether the window is capped. Adds modest value over 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed immediately by the workflow guidance. No filler, no restatement of the title or parameter list.

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 read-only, 5-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering scope and workflow placement. It is nearly complete; only the return payload's structure (what a 'change' record contains) is left implicit, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so all five parameters (actor, limit, since, until, entity_id) are already documented with types, bounds and defaults in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('see what changed') scoped to a time window, with optional narrowing to one actor or one entity. The scope is unambiguous, though it never contrasts itself against a genuinely competing sibling (e.g. status or get_entity) — it only names undo_changes as a downstream consumer.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions ('review an agent's work') and an explicit workflow handoff ('before undo_changes to find the actor name and window'), which tells the agent what prerequisite data this tool supplies to a sibling. Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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