get_file_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and lists the kinds of context returned, but it does not disclose scope limits such as time range, pagination, permissions, or whether results are exhaustive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the action and the main categories of returned context efficiently.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful list of returned content categories but does not clarify result scope, ordering, or limits. It is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral details unspecified.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'path' parameter, including that it may be absolute, relative, or a basename. The description adds only that context is associated with the file path, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('context associated with a particular file') and enumerates the content types returned: snapshots, diffs, errors, and test failures. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as search_context or get_relevant_errors.

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 phrase 'particular file' implies file-scoped usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_context or get_relevant_errors. No exclusions or alternative-routing instructions are provided.

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