zerodb_plan_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return type (list of diffs) and the nature of the operation ('Get' → read-only). It does not detail potential errors, ordering, or whether the current version is included, but for a simple history retrieval, the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and wastes no words. It succinctly conveys both the purpose and the output format.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the return type (list of diffs) but does not elaborate on diff structure or ordering. For a minor gap like this, a 4 is appropriate; a 5 would require explicit mention of edge cases or detailed output shape.

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%, with the only parameter 'id' already described as 'Artifact ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get) and the resource (version history for a plan artifact), and specifies the return type (list of diffs). It is distinct from sibling tools like zerodb_plan_get, which fetches the current plan, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to see how a plan evolved. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'version history' implies usage for audit or change tracking, which differentiates it from the current-state getter. However, it stops short of stating when not to use it or explicitly comparing with plan_get.

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