get_file_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It exposes the useful behavior that renames are followed, which is a genuine behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the return format, pagination, or any potential performance caveats, leaving the agent without a complete picture.

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 single sentence is perfectly concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose and adding a key nuance without unnecessary words. It earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main intent but omits details about the output shape (since no output schema exists) and does not clarify parameter formats. It is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions and the description gives no additional detail about filepath or repo_path format (e.g., absolute vs relative, whether filepath is relative to repo_path). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the tool returns commit history for a specific file, and the parenthetical 'follows renames' adds a distinctive behavior. It lacks an explicit verb but is specific enough to distinguish from broader tools like list_commits.

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 implies usage for when a user needs a file's commit history, but it does not contrast with alternatives like list_commits or get_diff. There are no explicit 'when not to use' guidelines, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level.

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