History

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which describe the tool's safety profile. The description adds that undo steps backward, redo steps forward, and get-states returns the list of history states. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases like empty history or failure behavior, but given the annotations, the additional value is moderate.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary information. No verbose or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool has low complexity, and the description covers the three actions and the steps parameter. Without an output schema, it explains that get-states returns a list of history states. It could mention return value formats or empty history behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%; the description's mention of 'default 1 step' for the steps parameter duplicates the schema's default. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Manages document history' and enumerates the three actions (undo, redo, get-states) with verbs that indicate what each does. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other sibling tool handles history management.

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 explicitly guides usage with 'Use undo to recover from mistakes.' It implicitly suggests when to use redo and get-states but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist. Overall, usage context is clear.

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