ralph_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists what data is included in the report but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), if it requires specific permissions, how data is formatted/returned, if there are rate limits, or if it's resource-intensive. The description adds some context about report content but leaves major behavioral traits unspecified.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list that efficiently details the report contents without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important statement first.

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 the tool's complexity (historical reporting with multiple data types), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It specifies what data fields are included, which helps compensate for missing output schema, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, performance, or format. For a tool with no structured metadata, more comprehensive disclosure would be beneficial.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is valuable context given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed iteration history report'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like ralph_status or ralph_git_context by focusing on comprehensive historical data rather than current state or specific git operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like ralph_status (likely showing current status), ralph_git_context (likely git-specific info), and ralph_iterate (likely performing iterations), there's clear potential for overlap, but the description offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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