http_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description doesn't elaborate on any nuances like pagination, date ranges, or persistence. It is adequate but minimal, lacking extra context beyond the obvious.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the core functionality and the scope ('HTTP history'). The only gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, but its purpose is reasonably inferable from the schema. Overall, it gives the agent enough to use the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent is left to infer its meaning solely from the parameter name and default value in the schema. The description adds no value 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?

The description uses a clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('recently logged requests'), and adds context with 'HTTP history / Logger view'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like http_send or http_get, which perform actions rather than listing history.

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 implies when to use it (when the user wants to see recent HTTP requests), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't say 'use http_send to send a request instead'. The context is clear enough for basic inference, but not fully explicit.

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