uvcs_file_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description adds real value beyond them: newest-first ordering, the exact fields returned, and a non-obvious caveat that dates follow the cm client locale format because cm history has no date format option. It does not say whether maxResults truncation is signalled or how directories recurse.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action and returned fields come first, then the date-format caveat and safety note. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, return fields, and a date-format gotcha that would otherwise cause misinterpretation. That is enough for an agent to call it and read results correctly.

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 100% and both parameters carry descriptions including the 1-500 range and default of 50, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that a path may point at a file or directory.

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 and resource ('List the revisions of a file or directory') and enumerates the returned fields (changeset, branch, date, owner, comment). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like uvcs_annotate, uvcs_diff_file, or uvcs_revision_diff, which all operate on file history.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a dense cluster of history-related siblings (uvcs_annotate for line-level authorship, uvcs_diff_file for content comparison). 'Read-only' restates the annotation rather than offering routing advice.

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