buildx_history_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the exact output parsing method (`--format '{{json .}}'`), the fields returned, the version requirement, and the error behavior on unsupported versions. This is valuable context that annotations do not convey.

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 compact but information-dense: it opens with a clear purpose, then provides necessary detail on fields, usage context, version prerequisite, and parameter semantics. No extraneous content, and each sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers every important aspect: what it does, what it returns, how it behaves with older versions, and what the parameter does. It is fully self-contained for an agent to decide when to call it and how to use the results.

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 input schema has one optional parameter `builder` with no description. The description compensates fully with 'builder - Builder instance to read history from (defaults to the active builder)', clearly explaining the parameter's meaning and default behavior.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'List recent build records (BuildKit build history)' and clarifies that it parses the output from `--format '{{json .}}'`. It also references the sibling tool `buildx_history_inspect` for drilling into a specific build, making its role distinct.

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 explicitly states when this tool is useful: 'finding a build to drill into with buildx_history_inspect', which reveals the intended workflow and alternative. It also provides a clear prerequisite (buildx >= v0.13) and warns about the failure mode on older versions, acting as a when-to-use/check guideline.

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