history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains commit granularity (each AI/human change is one commit) and 'Show' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, ordering, or how the limit parameter affects results.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying detail about commit granularity without unnecessary elaboration.

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, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so not much is missing. However, the description assumes 'the book' refers to the currently connected book without saying so, and it fails to define the limit parameter semantics.

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% and the description does not mention the limit parameter. The only parameter is left to be inferred from its name and default value, so an agent may not know whether limit caps the number of commits, the time range, or something else.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the book's git history'), and the parenthetical clarifies that each AI or human change is one commit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_query, get_ledger, and balances, which deal with current data rather than change history.

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?

The description implies this tool is for viewing historical changes, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_ledger or run_query. There are no exclusions or conditions to help an agent choose between history and similar read-oriented tools.

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