getSymbolHistory

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

The description discloses the three data sources (LSP definition, blame, commit history) and the questions it answers. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that.

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 a single sentence plus a short clarifying sentence. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on the structure of the returned data. It mentions answering questions but omits format details. Parameters like maxCommits and blameLines are not linked to output behavior. Adequate but has gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, placing this at baseline 3.

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 precisely states the tool's purpose: combining LSP definition, git blame, and file commit history to answer 'why does this exist?' and 'who changed it last?'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitBlame or getGitLog, which are more granular.

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 historical symbol investigation but does not explicitly state when to use this composite tool versus individual siblings. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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