bdesign_editor_history

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by using 'Read', and adds context by specifying that the receipts are 'persisted' and relate to changes. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only operation this is sufficient given the annotation already covers safety.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential action and target clearly, making it easy to parse.

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?

While the core purpose is stated, the description lacks any detail about return format, parameter semantics, or invocation context. Given there is no output schema, the agent has no information about what the result looks like, making it incomplete for practical use.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'projectId'. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to guess whether projectId filters by project and how limit controls the result set.

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 verb 'Read' clearly indicates a retrieval operation, and the resource 'persisted command receipts for timeline and Canvas changes' identifies the specific data being accessed. This distinguishes it from tools like bdesign_editor_render or bdesign_editor_snapshot, though 'command receipts' is slightly specialized terminology.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bdesign_generation_history or bdesign_canvas_search. The description implies a historical read but does not contrast with other history/read tools, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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