Scored run history

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: no git is spawned, repo path resolution walks up to the nearest crapkit.toml, relative paths resolve from the server's start directory, and two failure modes return isError true. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and primary use case are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (alternatives, git behavior, path resolution, error pointers). It is dense and runs long in a single block, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation; the description instead covers the gaps that matter — path resolution, absence of git side effects, and the two isError pointer outcomes. Complete for a read-only listing 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% with one optional param, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that repo accepts any directory under the checkout because the server walks up to the nearest crapkit.toml, which is path-resolution behavior the schema's one-line description does not convey.

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 with ordering semantics ('Lists every run in the store, oldest first by id') and immediately names the siblings it is not (get_trend, get_function_history). An agent can distinguish it from all eleven siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'use it to date the store or to see which commit the other tools answer from' plus named alternatives with the condition that selects each (per-run totals vs one function's per-run scores). Nothing is left to inference.

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