buildx_history_list

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: the exact CLI format used, the buildx version requirement, and the specific RemoteFailureError raised on CLI failure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by necessary context (record contents, version requirement, error behavior), then compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the Returns section usefully describes the list shape and included record fields. It also covers error behavior and the version constraint. The only minor gap is unspecified ordering or result-size limits, but these are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting `builder` as 'Builder instance to read history from (defaults to the active builder)'. This adds practical meaning, though the schema's string type vs. 'Builder instance' wording creates minor ambiguity.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent build records (BuildKit build history)', plus the exact parsing method via `--format '{{json .}}'`. It also references `buildx_history_inspect` as the natural downstream tool, making its role distinct from that sibling.

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?

Clearly states it is useful for finding a build to drill into with `buildx_history_inspect`, and gives a version prerequisite. It does not explicitly enumerate when to favor alternatives like `buildx_list`, but the intended use case is clear.

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