list_backplane_history

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it lists history. It does not explain pagination, rate limits, or what 'historical' means (e.g., time range criteria).

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?

At only five words, the description is overly terse. It fails to front-load critical information about parameters or behavior, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 the existence of multiple sibling tools with similar names, a paginated list with three parameters, and an output schema (unseen), the description lacks essential details such as what constitutes a 'historical' connection, how pagination works, or what the returned data contains.

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 does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, offset, fetch_all), despite a 0% schema description coverage. The parameters control pagination and fetching behavior, but the description provides no hints about their meaning or usage.

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 lists 'historical backplane connections', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the historical nature from current backplane tools like 'list_backplanes', but could more explicitly contrast with 'get_backplane_history' (singular) which might retrieve a single entry.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_backplane_history' or 'list_backplanes'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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