List dictation history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are newest-first, rows cannot be linked to notes, and discarded/deleted items are omitted. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Three compact sentences each earn their place: the first states action, scope, and output fields; the second disambiguates from related tools; the third discloses an important limitation. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers ordering, returned fields, exclusive scope, exclusions, and the relevant alternative tool. The structured schema handles parameter details, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents both limit and status. The description adds only contextual framing like 'newest first' rather than new parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the OpenWhispr dictation history (newest first)' and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly differentiates itself from note transcripts and names the sibling get_note_transcript, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'These rows are NOT note transcripts... use get_note_transcript for those.' It also clarifies scope by noting discarded and deleted dictations are invisible, which helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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