get_operation_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (id, description, operationType, entityType, sequence, createdAt, isCurrent) and notes pagination, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe any side effects, or mention authentication or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the return structure, then gives a usage note. The bulleted list of return fields is justified because there is no output schema, but the description is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return fields, which is essential. It also covers purpose and a usage scenario. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases, auth requirements, or sibling routing, but for a simple paginated read tool it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (page, perPage, projectId). The description mentions pagination but adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the operation history for a project with pagination.' It clearly conveys what the tool returns (operation history) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like jump_to_operation, clear_operation_history, or get_undo_redo_status.

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?

It provides a use case: 'Use this to display an operation history timeline and allow jumping to specific points.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jump_to_operation (which actually performs jumping) or get_undo_redo_status, leaving the agent to infer the distinction. The mention of 'allow jumping' could even mislead an agent into thinking this tool performs the jump.

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