openl List Project Local Changes

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral context: the prerequisite of project opening, the session-based context, and the return type of workspace history items. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise: two sentences plus a brief note. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists what it returns, and the note adds critical usage context. No superfluous information.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the parameter, prerequisites, exclusions, and return content. There are no glaring gaps.

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 100% with one optional parameter (response_format) that has enums and defaults. The description explains each enum value's purpose (structured data, human-readable, brief summary, full details), adding semantic value beyond the schema's definition.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'local change history for a project', and specifies the return type: workspace history items with versions, authors, timestamps, comments. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the prerequisite of opening the project and the unavailability for local projects.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after opening a project with openl_open_project, and excludes repository 'local' projects. It also notes that no projectId parameter is needed due to session context. However, it does not mention specific alternatives among sibling tools.

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