plasticity_construction_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive context: the history is private and local, survives MCP restarts, works without a connected Plasticity window, and records are historical and never authorize replay. That last point meaningfully closes off an incorrect replay interpretation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is read, followed by the persistence/lifecycle conditions, then paging. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the record contents. It omits ordering (newest-first vs oldest-first), which matters for a paged history read, but is otherwise complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the load. It names both parameters and frames them as a paging pair, which clarifies their combined intent beyond the bare integer bounds and defaults in the schema. Minor gap: it doesn't state the default page size or the 100 cap from the schema.

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 (Read) and resource (private local construction-event history) and enumerates what the records contain: operation inputs, outcomes, and added/removed/modified B-Rep measurements. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings like plasticity_construction_journal or plasticity_changes_since, so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the text alone.

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?

"Use offset/limit for paging" is invocation mechanics, not when-to-use guidance. Given a dense sibling field containing plasticity_construction_journal, plasticity_changes_since, and plasticity_capture_snapshot, the absence of any explicit selection criteria or exclusions is a real gap.

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