sootool.policy_history

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing ordering (recorded order), the per-item fields returned (action, timestamp, audit_id, before/after sha256), the action values (activate, rollback, import), and the empty-list behavior when no history exists. Does not mention retention limits or pagination, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences: purpose, return shape/edge case, and alternative. Front-loaded with the verb, no redundant restatement of the tool name, nothing that could be cut.

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 read-only two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, empty result, and the sibling alternative — enough to invoke correctly. The only gap is the unresolved semantics of the required domain/name parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names the two parameters in passing ('정책 하나(domain, name)') but never explains what domain represents (namespace/tenant?) or the expected format of name, leaving the agent to infer both.

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 ('정책 하나(domain, name)의 변경 감사 기록을 반환한다') and immediately disambiguates from the closest sibling by noting that policy content is retrieved via sootool.policy_get instead. An agent can tell this returns audit history, not policy content.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to sootool.policy_get when the actual policy body is wanted, which is the most likely confusion. However it does not distinguish this audit-log read from sootool.policy_diff, another sibling that also concerns changes, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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