Retrieve a document's modification journal—timestamps, operations, and abbreviated arguments, newest last—to audit or trace CAD edits; set a limit to control entries.
Journal of modifying operations applied to doc (time, operation, abbreviated arguments), newest last.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the journal contents and newest-last ordering, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, or how the `limit` affects results.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently states the resource, contents, and ordering.
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, so the description need not explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description remains incomplete regarding the optional `limit` parameter and usage context.
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%, and the description only implicitly identifies `doc` as the target document. It does not explain the `doc` parameter's expected format or the meaning and default behavior of the `limit` parameter.
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 states a clear resource: a journal of modifying operations applied to `doc`, with time, operation, and abbreviated arguments, ordered newest last. This is specific enough to understand what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `object_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?
The description only explains what the history contains and its ordering. It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `object_history`, `undo`, or document inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.