computeruse_list_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does so by stating the operation is read-only and does not replay actions, which is a critical safe behavior for an agent to know. It does not disclose ordering or pagination details, but 'recent' and the schema-provided limit add reasonable context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the crucial safety qualifier. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the source, scope, and safety posture. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap for a straightforward history-listing operation.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema's default and constraints imply. The description provides no additional semantics for how many runs are listed or how the limit interacts with recency.

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 ('List'), names the resource ('recent tracked ComputerUse runs'), and identifies the data source ('SQLite history'). The phrase 'does not replay actions' explicitly distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like computeruse_execute_step and computeruse_start_session.

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 description clearly signals a read-only, history-viewing use case and explicitly warns that it does not replay actions, so an agent knows not to invoke it for execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as computeruse_get_history_session for session-specific history, but the context is strong enough.

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