index_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds some value by disclosing ordering ('newest first') and that sizes are included, but says nothing about permissions, whether this is read-only, how many results default, or what moviola.db refers to versus the db_path parameter.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key scoping facts (source database, ordering, included fields) front-loaded. Efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than ideal density.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves too much open: parameter meanings, the db_path/moviola.db relationship, and default result volume are all absent.

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 description coverage is 0% for 3 parameters, and the description mentions none of them by name. limit, preset, and db_path are completely undocumented; 'sizes included' is not a parameter at all, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource (a history of conversions from moviola.db) and mentions ordering and included sizes, so the general intent is graspable. However, the verb is only implied ('Recent conversions'), and it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like index_stats or index_chains, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

'Recent' hints at a recency window but gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing to index_stats/index_chains as alternatives. The agent is left to infer which index-related tool to call.

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