bardo_note_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds specifics: the tool returns up to 10 versions, ordered newest to oldest, and includes the actual wording (not just metadata). This goes beyond annotations and provides actionable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence. Front-loaded with the main action and key details (ordering, limit, content type). No redundant words.

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 no output schema, so the description should inform about return format. It hints at 'actual wording' but does not specify structure, error cases, or pagination behavior. While the limit of 10 edits is given, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters. While note_id is inferable from context, session_token is completely unexplained. For a parameter with no schema description, the tool description should clarify its role but does not.

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 verb 'See', the resource 'surviving versions of a note', and adds details like ordering (newest to oldest) and limit (up to 10 edits). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like bardo_note_get or bardo_notes_list by emphasizing 'actual wording' versus metadata.

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 usage for retrieving historical note content but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as bardo_note_get or bardo_notes_list. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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