code-fundi-list-history

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the qualifier 'your' (scope to user's own history) and mentions filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, ordering, or any potential side effects. With annotation coverage, the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List your Code-Fundi query history') and then summarizes the optional filters. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 a listing tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It does not explain the return shape, pagination behavior, or how to choose between this and sibling tools. However, the schema covers parameters and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. The description gives adequate context for the tool's primary purpose but leaves gaps in usage guidance and output expectations.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions a subset of filters (date range, category, endpoint, repository) but does not add additional semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain the meaning or formatting of limit, offset, query_type, or conversation_id, though those are covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('your Code-Fundi query history') and mentions optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like code-fundi-history-item (which likely handles a single item) and code-fundi-usage-stats/activity-stats. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as code-fundi-history-item, code-fundi-conversation, or code-fundi-usage-stats. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is that it lists query history, but no explicit comparative guidance is given, which is a notable gap given the large sibling set.

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