history_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it lists history and is filterable, but it does not disclose important behaviors such as whether results are sorted (e.g., chronological), how pagination works beyond the limit, what constitutes 'success' status, or whether the tool is read-only. Since there are no annotations, this is a notable gap for a tool that could have side effects (though listing is generally safe). The description does not mention any side effects or read-only guarantee.

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 a single concise sentence in Spanish, followed by a short clause about filtering. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Lista el historial') and includes the key filtering attribute. No fluff or redundant information. It could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for purpose and filters, but it's efficient and within reasonable length.

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 is a simple list operation with 4 optional filters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and filter categories. However, it lacks context on the ordering of results, interpretation of 'estado' (success boolean), and any interaction with other tools like history_clear (e.g., whether this tool only lists in-memory history). Without annotations, some behavioral info would improve completeness. But for a straightforward list tool, it's adequate, scoring a 3.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a brief description: 'type' filters by type, 'limit' caps results, 'success' filters by outcome, and 'connection' filters by connection name. The tool description adds only high-level filter categories ('tipo, conexion y estado') which maps to type, connection, and success, but it doesn't add detail beyond the schema. The schema already documents the parameters, so the description provides a baseline 3, but it doesn't clarify value formats (e.g., allowed types for 'type' field) beyond what the schema lists.

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 'Lista el historial de consultas ejecutadas' (Lists the history of executed queries), which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (query history). It also mentions filterability by type, connection, and status, providing a clear purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like history_clear or inspect_last_query, though the resource is clear.

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 reviewing executed queries, and the filter hints indicate typical use cases. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like history_clear or inspect_last_query, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Since it's a history listing tool, the context is somewhat clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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