dcs_asset_history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "[READ]" prefix merely restates it, adding no new behavioral information. Nothing is said about ordering (newest first?), pagination defaults, what a change entry contains, or behavior when the asset has no history or does not exist.

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?

It is a single short clause with no wasted words and the key verb and resource are front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, since no substantive information beyond the title is conveyed.

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?

For a two-parameter history-query tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should carry the load on inputs, ordering, and result shape. It instead supplies only a bare purpose statement, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it 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%, so neither asset_id nor limit is documented anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, leaving the agent to guess that asset_id identifies the target asset and that limit caps returned entries, and with no stated maximum or default behavior beyond the schema's 100.

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?

"Read asset change history" names a verb and a resource, so the agent can tell it returns history rather than current asset state. But it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like dcs_asset_errors, dcs_asset_stats, or dcs_asset, which all operate on the same asset and could plausibly return similar data.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many asset-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for historical change auditing rather than errors, stats, tags, or policies.

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