ass_undo_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that snapshots are raw and unlabeled, that entries are positional from oldest to newest, what each entry summary contains (line count, first start time, line count difference), and that line indices are 0-based. It stops short of explicitly declaring the operation read-only or noting any permission needs, but 'List' implies a safe read.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically into behavior then return shape. It is moderately sized and generally earns its place, though the explicit Returns block is partly redundant because an output schema already exists. No major waste beyond that duplication.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations, the description covers the operational behavior (positional steps, summary fields, ordering) and even restates the return structure. The main missing piece is any semantic for the doc_id parameter, which leaves a small operational gap. Otherwise it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 single parameter doc_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, leaving the agent with no explanation of what doc_id represents or what null/default means. The return payload references a 'doc_id' field but that does not clarify the input. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the undo steps available for a document.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling ass_undo by explaining that the highest step is what ass_undo would restore next. An agent can tell this tool inspects history without opening either schema.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer this tool is for inspecting undo history before taking action, but there is no explicit 'use this when' instruction or any exclusion versus ass_undo or ass_redo. The reference to ass_undo describes the data, not when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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