history

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing ordering (newest first), the scope of what is tracked, and that every entry carries the token required by undo. It does not state retention window or whether the history is scoped to the current user/workspace.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its sort order, followed by the enumerations and the undo-token detail. No filler or redundancy.

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, single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the list contains, its ordering, and the actionable payload (undo tokens). Minor gaps — history scope and retention — do not block correct invocation.

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?

There is a single optional 'limit' parameter whose schema description already states the default of 20 and the cap of 100. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage, but leaves it at the baseline.

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 resource concretely (Timbre's recent change log) and enumerates the change categories covered — moves, marks, rules, mailboxes, templates, saved searches — plus ordering ('newest first'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'undo' tool, but the shared 'token undo takes' phrase makes the relationship readable.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the place to discover recent activity and to obtain an undo token before calling 'undo', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named.

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