history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Recent' hints at reverse-chronological ordering and 'this machine' indicates the data source, but there is no disclosure of default limits, pagination, retention window, or required permissions for a read operation that may span deploy/restore credentials.

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 short sentence with no filler and the identifying content front-loaded. It earns its place, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than concision discipline.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation listing tool, the description leaves the parameter roles, result ordering, and result size entirely unexplained. Too little is said for an agent to invoke this confidently alongside eight sibling tools.

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% for both 'site' and 'limit', and the description says nothing about either — not that site filters history to one site, nor what limit bounds or defaults to. An agent has no basis for setting these parameters from the description.

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 fragment names the recorded resource types (deploys, pulls, restores) and the source ('this machine'), which does separate it from the action siblings like deploy and restore. But there is no verb and no scope statement — it never says it lists/queries records, nor whether it covers one site or all sites. Purpose is inferable, not stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_backups or check_server_changes, which an agent could easily confuse with this historical log. The only contextual cue is 'from this machine', which is about source, not selection.

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