get_file_history

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Get file version history'. It does not mention pagination (though schema has limit/offset), read-only nature, error behavior, or whether it returns history for all files in the matter or a specific file. The parameter matter_id instead of file_id further confuses behavior.

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, which is concise but too sparse. It lacks structure and essential details, making it minimally informative. It earns its place but could be improved by adding parameter context.

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 but does not compensate for missing context. The tool name suggests a file-specific operation but requires only matter_id, creating confusion. No explanation of what 'version history' entails (e.g., listing all versions of all files?). Pagination behavior is implied by schema parameters but not described.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds nothing about matter_id, limit, or offset. The agent has no clue what each parameter means beyond the schema's type/defaults. This is a critical 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 'Get file version history for a matter' clearly states the action (Get), resource (file version history), and scope (for a matter). It differentiates from siblings like get_folder_history (folder vs file) and get_file (current state vs 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file for current version, get_file_download_url for downloading). No prerequisites or context provided. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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