review_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses immutable snapshots, bounded pagination via next_cursor, and that failed/timed-out sessions still appear through the session's state. Some details like ordering or exact timestamp granularity are omitted, but the key behavioral traits are 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?

Three dense sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and every sentence earning its place. It packs query modes, result content, pagination, and failure visibility without repetition.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description gives the agent a good mental model of the return content: snapshots, cursor, and session state. It does not spell out the exact response shape or ordering, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: session_id returns the session's own state, last_n means recent reviews, and cursor is tied to bounded pagination. That is more than a restatement of the parameter names.

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 opens with the specific, intelligible action 'Look up past review results' and immediately distinguishes history access from the plan/code/precommit/status siblings. The two query modes (session_id and last_n) specify exactly what resource is being accessed.

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?

It clearly states when to use each parameter: session_id for all reviews in a session, last_n for recent reviews. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use them, so it stops short of an exclusion-based routing guide.

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