history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: chronological output, `+`/`-` semantics, and that renamed nodes remain reachable by former names (via `revise`/`supersede`). It doesn't state permissions or output size/pagination behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Print'.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each doing work: purpose, the change-tracking rationale, and the former-name behavior plus the pairing hint. Slightly dense but 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?

For a read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers output shape (chronological, `+`/`-`) and a non-obvious input behavior (former names). It leaves the `initiative` parameter and any output limits unexplained, but the essentials to call it correctly are present.

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 coverage is 50%: `name` is documented and the description usefully extends it (former names accepted, beyond the schema's name/UUID note). However, the `initiative` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap that the description does not compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb (Print) and resource (assertions/retractions for a node, chronologically), and even decodes the output symbols. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `at` by framing itself as the change-over-time view rather than a version reader.

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?

Tells the agent when this is the right lens ('how you see that a node CHANGED, and when') and explicitly routes to the companion tool `at <name> when=<t>` for reading a specific version in full. No explicit when-not, but the boundary with `at` is clear.

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