list_history

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses request/page bounds against Odoo.sh, a hard cap of eight requests with 60-second page timeouts, and the `truncated` flag signaling more results exist. This is exactly the pagination and cost behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then clearly separated Returns/Touches/Bounds sections. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, paginated listing tool this covers ordering, event contents, truncation, and rate bounds, even though an output schema exists. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It documents `limit` meaningfully (default 10, max 100) but only implies `project` and `branch` via 'a branch of a project' without format or identifier guidance. Partial compensation for a fully undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the history of a branch of a project') and enumerates the event kinds returned (pushes with commits, rebuilds, stage moves), which distinguishes it from list_builds or list_branches without opening their schemas. The 'newest first' ordering is a useful scoping detail.

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 implies when it applies (you want the branch's event timeline) through its event enumeration, but never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings like list_builds or get_build, nor names any exclusion. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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