List a kit's history ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 404 for unowned kits, opaque cursor rejection, metadata-only results, and the required kits:read permission. It also clarifies ordering and that apply-to-brand events appear here and nowhere else, going well beyond a simple 'list' label.

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?

Dense but each sentence adds unique value: event scope, sibling comparison, event id depth, token absence, ownership 404, cursor rules, and permission. There is no filler, and the structure is logical.

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?

Covers return semantics (rows, event ids, meta.nextCursor), edge cases (404 for catalog kits, opaque cursor rejection), and authentication (kits:read). With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces cursor opacity and slug ownership but does not add new parameter-level syntax beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it lists a kit's history ledger with specific event types (creation, save, applied to brand). It explicitly contrasts with list_kit_versions and names the distinguishing use case, so purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'this is the tool that answers whether a kit was ever actually used rather than merely edited.' Also explains the ownership condition (API-key kits vs curated catalog) and 404 behavior, giving clear context for when to call and what to expect.

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