query_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does communicate that this is a paginated read-style operation and what fields are returned, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freenature, ordering, empty-list behavior, or permissions. That gap keeps it at a moderate level.

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 just three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the main operation, then adds entry details, pagination, and a useful audit context all concisely.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly lists the main entry fields and pagination mechanics. It does not specify default ordering although that is often relevant for history tools, but most core functional context is covered.

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 covers all 2 parameters (limit and offset) fully. The description only repeats the pagination concept, adding no new semantics beyond the schema baseline, so it is adequate but not additive.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return a paginated list of past decisions stored in the SQLite state,' and describes the result fields. It is clear in operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_history tool, so it misses the top differentiation bar.

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 a clear usage context: useful for auditing past decisions without loading the full project state. It does not mention when not to use it or what alternative tool to prefer, but the audit use case is a strong guide.

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