history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ordering (oldest first), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, per-project scoping behavior, what an entry contains, or what happens if the stack is empty.

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 short sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than elegant concision.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no nesting, no output schema), yet with no annotations and an undocumented parameter the description leaves too much for the agent to infer. It should state that this is a read-only listing scoped by project and point to 'undo'/'redo' for the actual stack operations.

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 single required parameter 'project' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It is unclear whether 'project' is a name, ID, or path, or whether history is scoped per project.

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 names the resource ('undo/redo stack descriptions') and a scope ('oldest first'), so an agent can tell it returns history data rather than performing an action. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb (list/get/describe), and the distinction from the sibling tools 'undo' and 'redo' is only inferable, never stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternatives 'undo' and 'redo'. An agent must guess that this is the read-only inspection counterpart to those mutation tools.

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