docgraph_history

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it states a read-only 'show' operation, but annotations have destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. This is a clear contradiction, forcing the score to 1 per rules.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details. Every part is necessary and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (commits count, authors, dates, message) and edge cases (empty for untracked). It is mostly complete, though lacks info on output format or ordering.

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 single parameter 'document' is described in the input schema with 'Document name or path', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool shows git commit history for a document, listing specific details like number of amendments, authors, dates, and last commit message. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docgraph_status or docgraph_context, which handle other aspects.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to see history) and includes a condition for empty results (files not tracked by git). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, which could be helpful given the sibling list.

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