buildx_history_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the parsing format (`--format '{{json .}}'`), the record fields, and the version constraint. No contradictions, and the description enriches behavioral understanding.

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 concise: two main sentences plus a parameter/return listing. It front-loads the core purpose, includes necessary details (version, sibling, output format) without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage context, version requirement, parameter semantics, and return content. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains the parameter `builder` as 'Builder instance to read history from (defaults to the active builder)', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'List recent build records' and distinguishes itself from the sibling `buildx_history_inspect` by framing it as a tool to find builds to drill into. The verb 'list' and resource 'build records' are specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'useful for finding a build to drill into with buildx_history_inspect', giving clear when-to-use guidance. Also mentions version requirement (buildx >= v0.13), which is a necessary prerequisite.

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