history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the nature of the returned records (claims, rejections, blocked edits), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, scoping, ordering, or pagination limits.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the use-case immediately after; no filler. It is efficient, though the phrasing is idiomatic enough that a non-Czech-reading agent may find it slightly harder to parse than plain declarative prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers what the tool is for and when to reach for it. However, with no annotations and zero parameter documentation for a 2-parameter tool, an agent still lacks what it needs to call it precisely.

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 0% for both path and limit, so the description is the only place semantics could be added – yet neither parameter is mentioned. 'Who touched what' implies a path-scoped query, but the meaning of path (exact file? prefix?), the default, and what limit controls are all left unstated.

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 what the tool returns: a log of who touched what and how it turned out, enumerating outcomes (claim, rejection, blocked edit). That is a specific enough resource-level characterization to separate it from siblings like claim, release, and owner, even though it is phrased conversationally rather than as a clean verb+noun.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use this after a collision, when asking 'why was my edit blocked and who touched it.' That is clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. owner) for related questions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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