change_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping (session-only, assistant-made changes) and ordering (newest first), but it does not clarify what counts as a change, whether changes are pending or applied, or any retention limits. 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 a single tight sentence that conveys scope and ordering with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a read-only, one-parameter tool.

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 is no output schema and the description does not state what the returned change records look like or how limit affects results. An agent can infer that it returns some list of session changes, but the level of detail is thin for a tool that has no output schema to fill the gap.

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?

The only parameter, limit, has no description and the description never mentions it, so it does not compensate for 0% schema_description_coverage. The schema supplies type and default, but not semantics like maximum allowed value or behavior when omitted.

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 identifies the resource as in-session changes made by this assistant, and 'newest first' implies a chronological listing. It is distinguishable from undo and apply_changes, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'view'.

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?

'In this session' gives some context for when to use it, but the description does not contrast it with related tools such as apply_changes, undo, or preset history. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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