Check whether a file, URL, or arXiv ID appears in local AI-agent session history before editing, returning a simple true/false answer.
Cheap first question before editing a file: does this artifact have any history in local agent sessions? One line; history true/false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | file path (absolute or relative to cwd), URL, or arxiv:<id> |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ("cheap"), output shape ("one line; history true/false"), and scope (local agent sessions), but says nothing about permissions, latency beyond cost, or what qualifies as "history," leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 tight clauses, front-loading the usage trigger and then the cost/return profile. No filler sentences and nothing buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return format (one line, boolean) and the cost profile, which is sufficient for a trivial query tool. The only gap is not routing against the similar-sounding why_file sibling.
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% and the single path parameter is fully documented in the schema (file path, URL, or arxiv:<id>). The description adds no meaning beyond "this artifact," so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: it checks whether an artifact has history in local agent sessions, and clarifies the return is a one-line true/false. It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling why_file, which sounds closely related, so an agent could still hesitate between them.
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?
"Cheap first question before editing a file" gives a concrete when-to-use trigger and implies a cost-based ordering of calls. It does not name alternatives (e.g., why_file) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.