history_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that history is durable, snapshots are named, and undo is operation-based rather than snapshot-based, which shapes agent expectations about the data model.

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 short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying a subtle semantic point about undo, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the basic purpose, but it does not explain what the returned history or snapshots look like, how named snapshots are identified, or how to target a specific snapshot. With no output schema, an agent would have to guess at the response shape.

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 schema has a single required parameter documentId with no description, and the tool description does not mention documentId at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for the missing parameter semantics, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer that documentId likely selects which document's history to read.

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 ('Read') and resource ('durable operation history and named snapshots'), and the second sentence distinguishes this tool from undo-oriented siblings by clarifying that undo targets an operationId, not a whole-document snapshot. This gives an agent enough to tell history_read apart from history_undo and snapshot_restore.

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 the tool is for reading history and snapshots, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. The undo clarification hints at a boundary, yet it does not name siblings like history_undo or snapshot_restore, leaving the usage guidance indirect.

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