Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving history but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'history' entails (e.g., time range, sorting). This leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of sessions/commits), behavioral aspects like data scope or limitations, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with potential complexity in historical data retrieval, more context is needed.

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%, with the parameter 'limit' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'all' sessions, which doesn't clarify how 'limit' interacts with this scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get history') and resource ('all coding sessions and their commits'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_session' or 'get_session_info', which might retrieve similar data but with different scopes or details.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_current_session' or 'get_session_info'. The description implies it retrieves historical data, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to siblings.

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