List Histories

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

Annotations already declare safe read operations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the output includes timestamps, which aligns with annotations. No contradiction, but no additional behavioral insights beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentence, front-loaded, and free of fluff. However, it omits important details that could be added concisely, like parameter hints.

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 simple list tool with safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks parameter explanations and usage context. Given no output schema, some explanation of return format would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter (guid, take, before, workspaceId). The mention of 'for a doc' hints at guid but leaves others completely undocumented.

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 clearly states the verb (List), resource (doc histories/timestamps), and scope (for a doc). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like list_docs, list_tags, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_docs or list_comments. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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