Change history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the composition of the returned records (applied vs. failed vs. undone proposals), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not discuss volume, pagination, or retention windows.

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 filler, and the resource is stated first. The word 'Every' slightly overstates the result set given the schema's default limit of 20 and maximum of 100, a minor imprecision in an otherwise efficient sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so at a high level (applied/failed/undone) but says nothing about record structure, pagination, or how far back history goes. Both parameters are optional, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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%: limit is documented as 'most proposals to return, newest first' with default and bounds, and customer_id notes the dashed/undashed format and points to list_accounts. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (every proposal made through Camberstack) and enumerates the record contents (applied, failed, undone), so the agent knows this is a historical/audit listing rather than an action. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it contrasts with (propose_changes, apply_changes, undo_changes), but the 'history' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as run_gaql or account_overview for related lookups. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is a read-only audit call.

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