Bytebase: recent query history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The words 'recorded' and 'history' imply a read-only retrieval rather than query execution, but the description does not explicitly disclose safety, auth needs, ordering, or retention 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and use cases without bloating the definition. The phrase 'recorded by Bytebase' is slightly redundant with the tool title, but it does not waste meaningful space.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core intended uses but leaves out details such as what fields history entries contain and how results are sorted beyond 'recent'. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 effectively high because both parameters have descriptions, including a default for limit and the filtering purpose of database. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline rating is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a source of recent SQL Editor queries recorded by Bytebase, with concrete use cases. It is not purely a restatement of the title, though it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling bytebase_query.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: recovering a previously run query or learning how a table is normally joined. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it stays just short of full routing guidance.

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