history

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the categories of events returned (lease, refusal, blocked edit), which is genuine content-level transparency, and the phrasing implies a read-only inspection. But it never states that this is non-mutating, whether it requires permissions, or how results are bounded/paginated despite there being a limit parameter.

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 no filler; the summary of what history returns is front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. The quoted example intent is slightly informal but earns its place by grounding the trigger condition.

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-value formatting needn't be explained, and the description does cover purpose and trigger. The gap is behavioral and parameter detail: with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on what path/limit do and whether the call is safe and bounded. Adequate but incomplete for a 2-param lookup tool.

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% across two parameters (path, limit), and the description adds no semantics for either — it never explains that path scopes the history to a specific file or that limit caps result count. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 (edit/lease history) and the content of the result set — who touched what and how it ended (lease, refusal, blocked edit) — which is far more specific than the bare name 'history'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like owner, claim, and release by framing the tool as a retrospective audit rather than a state-changing action. However, the action verb is only implied ('Ask this') rather than stated as a retrieval operation.

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?

Explicit trigger is given: 'Ask this after a collision' with a quoted user intent ('why was my edit blocked and who was there'). That tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It stops short of 5 because no alternative or exclusion is named — the agent is not told what to use instead when it wants current state rather than history.

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