get_build_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup but does not state whether results are paginated, ordered, truncated by default, or what the return shape looks like. The limit default of 10 is only in the schema, not reflected in behavior narrative.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core operation but leaves return format, ordering, and limits unexplained, which matters since no output schema or annotations fill those gaps.

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 both parameters (branch, limit) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only reinforces the branch scoping and adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commit/build history') scoped to a branch, which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_logs or git_status, so an agent must infer the boundary between this and similar history-oriented tools.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_logs or git_status, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist locally). The only contextual cue is the required branch parameter in the schema.

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