get_config_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: read-only, snapshots are written by daily_brief and never by this tool, and secret-named keys are redacted to <redacted> before comparison so changed secrets don't appear as changes. It also enumerates the covered configuration surface (realm/event settings, roles, flows, clients, scopes, components, identity providers).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a coherent structure. The long enumeration of covered configuration areas is informative for scope but is dense and could be trimmed without much loss.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. Between the scope list, redaction semantics, snapshot provenance, and baseline parameter, everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly is present.

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?

With 0% schema coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format for baseline_date and that the default is the latest snapshot before today. This is meaning the schema does not supply.

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 (compare) and resource (realm configuration now vs. a stored daily snapshot) with distinctive scope. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by declaring it is read-only and distinct from daily_brief, which writes the snapshots.

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 routing: use it to see the full change list when daily_brief reports [CONFIG] changes, or to compare against an older day. That names an alternative and a trigger condition, though it does not spell out when-not-to-use scenarios.

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