View Policy History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: owner-scoping by the authenticated Montycat credential, inability to select another owner, and the specific kinds of events visible (delegated, denied, revoked, transferred). No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight and well-structured: purpose first, then scoping/behavioral notes, then an Args section. 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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, event types, and parameter defaults. It stops short of explaining ordering, pagination, or the exact return shape, but those are minor for a filtered history-view 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that store is an optional filter defaulting to the configured store, and keyspace is an optional filter. This adds real meaning beyond the bare property names, though it could go slightly deeper on how the filters narrow the history results.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'View governance history visible to the configured owner.' It further specifies the types of events included (delegated, denied, revoked, transferred), clearly distinguishing this history tool from siblings like montycat_policy_view or montycat_policy_explain.

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 states the tool is read-only and owner-scoped, and explains it surfaces governance events without allowing the caller to select another owner. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of policy_view when you need historical events rather than current policy.'

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