qrtap_code_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), the fields returned (version number, reason, activation timestamp), and a genuinely useful invariant — the printed code never changed, only its target. It stops short of stating whether history is complete/bounded (retention, pagination) or any auth requirements, which is the remaining gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences: the return shape is front-loaded, use cases follow, and the closing invariant adds real value. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and ordering. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only result-set bounds (does history truncate? is it paginated?) are unaddressed.

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% and the codeId property description already explains it is the internal UUID from qrtap_create_code / qrtap_list_codes, not the slug. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does the work.

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 resource and scope: every destination one code has ever pointed at, newest first, with version number, reason, and activation time. This implicitly separates it from qrtap_get_code (current target) and qrtap_change_destination (mutation) — the phrase 'ever pointed at' and 'recover a previous URL' make the temporal, historical nature unmistakable.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: answering 'where did this code point last week?' and recovering a previous URL after a wrong retarget. That's clear positive guidance, but it never names an alternative sibling or states when *not* to use it (e.g. use qrtap_get_code for the current target).

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