dispatch_history

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads `~/.central-mcp/logs/<project>/dispatch.jsonl`, filters to terminal states, and merges terminal events with their matching `start` so each record includes both prompt and outcome. It stops short of describing error/edge-case behavior, but the core operational behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a useful mechanic and an alternative. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the file source, the merging behavior, and the main alternative. The only omissions are edge cases like a missing log file or an invalid `n`, which are minor given the tool's simplicity and output schema.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description is the only semantic source. It maps `n` to 'last N' and `name` to 'one project', and the log path `~/.central-mcp/logs/<project>/...` clarifies what `name` refers to. It doesn't spell out parameter limits or formatting, but it gives enough meaning beyond the bare 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the last N completed/failed/cancelled dispatches for one project.' It also signals the read-only log source and explicitly distinguishes itself from the cross-project sibling orchestration_history, so an agent can tell it apart from similar dispatch tools in the sibling list.

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?

The first sentence establishes the intended use case (per-project dispatch history), and the final sentence gives an explicit alternative: 'For a cross-project portfolio summary, use orchestration_history instead.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving little to inference.

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