Read work history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are bounded and chronologically ordered, pagination is available, and private work is excluded from MCP access.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core scope, pagination mechanism, and the one hard exclusion are each delivered in a single clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers ordering, boundedness, pagination, and the private-work exclusion, leaving only the limit parameter's behavior unstated.

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 only 33% — message_id is documented but limit and cursor are not. The description clarifies cursor's role (resuming), though it refers to "next_cursor" while the actual parameter is "cursor", a minor naming mismatch. The limit parameter's semantics remain unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read... work transition provenance") with scoping qualifiers (bounded, chronological, public). This differentiates it from siblings like read_work or work_proofs, but the jargon "transition provenance" is less immediately legible than it could be, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Private work is unavailable through MCP" gives one useful exclusion, and "Resume with next_cursor" implies a paginated follow-up workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over read_work, find_work, or work_proofs, so usage is only implied.

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