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 discloses the return type (dictionary with commit history and evidence sources), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, error behavior, or performance implications, leaving some ambiguity.

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 brief and well-structured: a purpose statement, a bulleted args list, and a returns line. Every sentence contributes meaning, no filler, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

With only 3 parameters and a provided output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, required and optional parameters, and the general return shape. It lacks usage guidance and some behavioral details, but those are counted elsewhere. For its complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining all three parameters: file_path (relative path), repo (optional filter), and limit (max commits). This adds genuine meaning beyond the schema. Slight vagueness remains for 'repo filter' (format not specified), but overall it's strong.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and distinct resource ('commit history and symbol evolution for a kernel file path'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_commits (generic search) and get_commit_details (single commit), as it is file-path-centric and includes symbol evolution.

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 a clear use case (file-specific history), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like blame_line_range or search_commits. It gives no exclusions or alternative guidance, only the applicable context.

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