phantom_fork_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is chronological and includes provenance but lacks details like read-only nature, performance implications, or error conditions. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Highly concise: two sentences for purpose, one for parameter explanation. Front-loaded with key action, no filler.

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?

Given simple schema (1 param, no output schema), description sufficiently defines tool purpose, input, and output nature (chronological history with provenance). Could be improved with details on default behavior or time range, but it's complete enough for basic use.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section explaining the parameter 'session_id' as 'Session to get fork history for', adding meaning beyond the schema which only has a type and title. No enum or nested objects, but coverage is compensated.

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 it returns the history of all forks/interventions in a session, with chronological ordering and TIBET provenance. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like phantom_fork (which creates forks) and phantom_audit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like phantom_audit or phantom_status. It doesn't specify retrieval scope, filtering options, or when not to use it.

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