Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves edit history chronologically, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get every edit ever made to a file') and adds essential scope details ('across all sessions, chronologically'). There is no wasted language, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is adequate for a basic read tool but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., data format, errors) and parameter nuances. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more context would be beneficial to fully guide usage.

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 50% (only 'session_id' has a description). The description adds no explicit parameter information beyond implying 'file_path' is required for the file. It does not clarify the format of 'file_path' (e.g., absolute path, relative) or the meaning of 'session_id' beyond what's in the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description provides minimal additional parameter context.

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 the specific action ('Get every edit ever made'), target resource ('to a file'), and scope ('across all sessions, chronologically'). It uses precise verbs and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_session_timeline' or 'replay_file' by emphasizing comprehensive, chronological history across all sessions.

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 usage for retrieving full edit history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session_timeline' (which might focus on a single session) or 'replay_file' (which might simulate edits). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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