get_review_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'counts over time', implying aggregated data rather than individual runs. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, what happens if the project doesn't exist, or other behavioral traits. Basic transparency is present but could be more detailed.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding the filtering option in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides enough information for most use cases. The output schema exists to document return values, so the description does not need to cover that. Minor gap: it could mention that the tool is read-only or that results are aggregated, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'kind' is a filter with valid values 'review' or 'drc', which the schema does not provide. The 'project' parameter is self-explanatory from the context. This adds significant value beyond the plain 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 clearly states the tool shows past review/DRC runs with counts over time. It uses the verb 'show' and resource 'past review/DRC runs', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'review_design' (creating reviews) and 'run_drc' (running DRC).

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 description provides a filtering option by 'kind' with explicit values 'review' or 'drc', guiding when to use each filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context of historical data is clear.

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