history_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that records are request-response audit entries stored in SQLite, but omits read-only safety, pagination/ordering behavior, and return characteristics for an 8-parameter list operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and data source immediately, and every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin. It does not explain return structure or pagination behavior, and it leaves two parameters (limit, offset) undocumented, so an agent lacks context needed to call 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 75%, with most filter parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and limit/offset are undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('previous request-response audit records'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as history_get, history_compare, history_clear, or history_export, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Listing implies the tool is for retrieving multiple history records, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like history_get or history_export. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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