wit_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state 'Leitura' (read-only), which is valuable, and 'campo a campo' indicates per-field history granularity. However, it does not disclose output shape, ordering, or pagination 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?

The text is very short and front-loaded with the action and resource. The final 'Leitura.' is slightly redundant with 'Lê', but it usefully reinforces the read-only nature.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, revision order, or how 'top' interacts with paging. For a history tool, this leaves the agent without enough context to anticipate the result.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain that 'id' is the work item identifier or that 'top' caps the number of returned revisions; only 'project' is described in 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 states a specific verb and resource: reads the revision history of a work item, field by field. This distinguishes it from siblings like wit_get or wit_comments, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of wit_get, wit_comments, or other siblings. The usage context is only implied by the word 'histórico'.

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