sanity_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints that each revision includes author and timestamp ('who changed what and when'), but omits important behaviors such as pagination, ordering of revisions, inclusion of deleted documents, and required permissions. This leaves significant gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no filler. Slightly more detail would be acceptable, but it is appropriately concise.

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 history retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior (limit order), and permission requirements. It is adequate but not fully thorough.

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 100% for both parameters (id and limit). The description adds context about response content (authors, timestamps) but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the revision history of a document. See who changed what and when.' It identifies the resource (revision history) and the specific verb (get), and adds context about the content of the history (who, what, when). This distinguishes it from siblings like sanity_get_document (current version) and sanity_diff (comparison of specific revisions).

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 use when revision history is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sanity_get_document or sanity_diff. No exclusions or alternative pointers are provided.

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