repl_get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating the return format ('JSON array of execution records') and session scoping. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies what the agent can expect, though it could mention limits like last_n maximum.

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 highly concise: three brief sections that state what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool, the description provides sufficient context: it names the action, the use case, and the return format. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters. It could mention that session_id is required or that last_n has a maximum, but these are not essential given the schema exists.

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 description conceptually refers to 'last N' and 'session', aligning with the parameters last_n and session_id. However, it does not specify required vs optional, defaults, or minimum/maximum values. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter detail.

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 'Get the last N execution records for a session', which specifies the action (get), resource (execution records), and scope (session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repl_run_code or repl_get_variable, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 includes 'Useful for debugging what happened in previous calls', giving a clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the intended scenario is well conveyed.

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