list_manual_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only chronological list, but it does not state ordering guarantees, pagination, permission requirements, or what 'retired' revisions are and how they are excluded by default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It does not describe the shape of the returned history or how the retirement filter changes results.

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 coverage is 50%: include_retired only notes 'Default: false' and design_id has no description at all. The description implies design_id scoping but adds no meaning for include_retired, leaving the agent uninformed about what a retired manual revision is.

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 gives a clear verb and resource with scope: list the chronological revision history of a design's manuals. That is specific enough to act on, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_manual_revision, diff_assembly_manuals, or list_design_versions.

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 has no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never says how it relates to get_manual_revision (a single revision) or to the version-listing tools in the same family, so the agent has to guess which tool to pick.

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