list_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'list', implying read-only, but doesn't confirm safety, describe pagination behavior, or mention that an output schema exists. Minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasted words, but lacks structure for an AI agent (no separation of purpose, usage, or example). It is terse rather than efficiently informative.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters (all optional) and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits explanations of pagination (limit/offset), filtering (tool_filter), and what history includes. Agent cannot fully grasp tool scope from description alone.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, tool_filter) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra context or meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 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 'List recent generation history' clearly states the action (list) and resource (generation history). It effectively conveys the core purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools (no other history listing tool). However, it could be more specific about 'generation' context.

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_generation_details). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent receives no help in deciding between tools.

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