watch_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It effectively discloses that captured logs are omitted by default and that include_logs changes this behavior, even explaining the volume rationale. It does not go further into data retention, output representation, or constraints, leaving some behavior to be inferred.

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?

Two compact sentences begin with the tool's core function and ordering, then immediately explain the only surprising default (excluded logs) and its rationale. There is no fluff or repetition. Every sentence 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 parameterless-required list tool with a fully described input schema, the description conveys the relevant list contents, ordering, and one critical filtering default. It does not repeat schema details and does not need to, since there is no output schema. The only missing piece is a brief statement about what the result looks like, but that is not a major gap for this simple retrieval tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds useful context for include_logs by noting the default exclusion and the hundreds-of-lines rationale, but it adds little meaning for limit, server, or container. This matches the baseline 3 for schema-heavy documentation.

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 that the tool 'List recorded restart incidents, newest first', which is a specific verb and resource. It identifies what the agent should expect and differentiates from action-oriented tools like docker_restart, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool such as watch_list or docker_logs.

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 gives an implied use case—viewing recorded restart incidents—by explaining what list it returns. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like docker_logs or watch_check, and does not discuss prerequisites such as requiring saved configuration names. The usage context is thin.

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