get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the return structure, the ordering, and the specific per-hop fields; this is meaningful context beyond the get-prefix. It does not mention empty results or authorization, but for a history-read tool the core behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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 dense sentence conveys the tool's purpose, ordering, and output fields without waste. The colon-delimited list front-loads the core concept (supersession chain) and then supplies per-hop specifics.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone, and it covers the main needed information: scope, ordering, per-hop diffs, surface-only flag, and evidence transport. Some concepts like 'supersession chain' and 'hop' are domain-specific and not defined, but for an agent familiar with the proposal domain this is complete enough.

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 schema already describes slug as 'The proposal slug' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the slug identifies a proposal and that a full supersession chain is returned, but it does not add format-level detail or constraints beyond the schema. It is adequate but not enriching beyond the schema.

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 the exact resource (a proposal's supersession chain), specifies ordering (oldest first), and enumerates the per-hop contents, making the tool's function precise. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_changelog and get_proposal by focusing on the supersession chain rather than general 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?

Usage is implied from the description: an agent should use this when it needs a proposal's full supersession history with per-hop details. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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