max_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: the exact record shape, the three undo_state lifecycle values, and that full=True returns complete args and output. It omits whether history is bounded, truncated by limit, or persisted across sessions, which leaves a gap for a read tool with no safety annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste; the returned-field list sits in a compact parenthetical and the most decision-relevant fact (undo_state semantics) is pushed early. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain returns, and it still supplies the undo_state vocabulary that the schema lacks. Missing only the filtering/limit behavior, which matters for predictable invocation but is a narrow gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 two unexplained parameters (`tool`, `limit`) are documented nowhere at all — the agent cannot tell from either source that `tool` filters the history by tool name or that `limit` defaults to 30. The description compensates for `full` only, leaving two of three parameters opaque.

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 ('Read the bridge's command history') and enumerates the record fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not position itself against named siblings such as max_info or max_undo beyond the undo_state note, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description explains when to set full=True and links 'on_stack' records to max_undo, which is genuinely useful routing. But it never says when to call this tool versus max_info or max_query_objects, and gives no guidance on the `tool` filter or the limit default.

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