get_context_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is largely redundant. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the history is immutable, results are ordered oldest first, and each entry carries commit metadata plus a diff against the prior version. It stops short of describing paging behavior or how much history exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then safety, then usage and the alternative. Every clause carries information: immutability, ordering, per-version diff, and the sibling hand-off. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the input schema fully covers the three parameters. What remains for the description to carry is scope, ordering, immutability and sibling differentiation, all of which are present. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so limit, offset and project_id are already documented in the schema, including offset's 'skip from the oldest' semantics. The description's 'oldest first' phrasing reinforces the ordering assumption behind offset but adds no new parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('Read the project's immutable Context versions') and qualifies scope with ordering and payload ('oldest first, each with its commit metadata and a diff against the previous version'). It explicitly routes away from the closest sibling by naming get_context for the current Context, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 gives two concrete use cases ('audit how the Context changed' and 'find an older context_version') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('for the current Context use get_context instead'). This is explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative, leaving little to inference.

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