session_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'List' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'with descriptions' tells the agent what kind of content to expect. It does not detail ordering or formatting, but an output schema exists to cover return structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action, the object, and the key detail about output. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It communicates scope ('all') and content ('descriptions'), and no other selection or invocation criteria are needed.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema has no properties), so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; no parameter information is missing.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all undo/redo history entries'), and adds that entries come 'with descriptions.' This is unambiguous and separates the operation from action siblings like session_undo and session_redo, which perform state changes rather than inspect 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 usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to prefer this over session_undo, session_redo, session_undo_step, or session_redo_step, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. The intended use is only implied by the verb and resource.

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