wb_live_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating query and the sentence states what state is reported, but it omits permissions, side effects, timeout behavior, and any output format details.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and behavioral detail.

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?

The description explains the core return concept—undo/redo state and history-safe availability—which partially compensates for the absent output schema. However, it leaves required parameter rpc_dir and optional timeout unexplained, so an agent lacks enough context to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, and the description never mentions rpc_dir or timeout. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving both parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('active undo/redo state'), plus a distinct diagnostic about history-safe live mutation availability. It implicitly differentiates from wb_live_undo/wb_live_redo and wb_live_state, though it does not name any sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'whether history-safe live mutation is available' hints at a pre-mutation check, but the agent must infer that context.

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