patch_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or API nuances. The agent cannot predict the tool's 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 description is extremely short but not concise; it omits essential information. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase fails to provide any useful details.

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?

With only one parameter, no annotations, and an omitted output schema, the description leaves the agent completely uninformed. It does not fulfill the minimum requirements for a useful tool definition.

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 input schema has one parameter (limit) with no description, and the tool description does not explain its meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic value.

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 'Kali Agent MCP tool: patch_history' merely repeats the tool name with a prefix, providing no verb or resource. It fails to indicate what the tool does beyond what the name implies, which is a tautology.

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 versus siblings like apply_patch or revert_patch. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage, though it is not actively misleading.

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