get_evolution_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb '查看' (view) indicates a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or further details about how the branches are listed. It adds some context by specifying the scope ('all') and the status values, but leaves out other potential behavioral nuances.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that is directly front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It clearly states what the tool does and what statuses are shown. It does not explain the return format or how 'limit' affects results, but for a status-viewing tool, this is adequate. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role, though additional context about branching semantics could enhance usability.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (limit) with its description and default value. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, and there is no extra value from the description.

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 the tool's function: viewing the status of evolution branches in the GitNexus sandbox repository. It uses a specific verb (查看/view) and specifies the resource (evolution branches) and the three possible statuses (open, merged, abandoned). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evolve_js and inject_knowledge, which clearly have different purposes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when you need to check branch statuses) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The purpose is clear, but there is no direct comparison to siblings or exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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