get_history

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

Discloses read-only behavior, chronological order, and contents (numbers, content, tags, branch assignments, revision links). Also mentions optional filtering with branchId and limit. Without annotations, this provides good transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded key information: purpose, read-only, return contents, and usage recommendation. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description explains return details well. Covers optional parameters and use cases. Minor omission of behavior when history is empty, but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. Description adds context 'optionally filter to a specific branch' and 'cap results', which reinforces schema but doesn't add new meaning beyond it.

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?

Description specifies verb 'Retrieve', resource 'thought history', and scope 'for the current active session'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_thought (single thought) and list_branches, making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'review the full reasoning chain or to find context before adding the next thought'. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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