log

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real context beyond them: ordering (newest first), that results are drawn from every log.md over a concept that link to it, and that git commits that changed the file are included. It doesn't disclose return shape or pagination, but for a read tool this is useful extra context.

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 ordering and mode split are front-loaded ('History, newest first. With file: ... Without: ...'), which is exactly the right structure. The trailing '`record` writes an entry' fragment is a minor aside, and the '§9' cross-reference is opaque without surrounding docs, but there is little waste.

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 should be richer about what entries look like and how `limit` behaves across the two modes. It covers the two-mode routing adequately but leaves `limit` undefined and gives no sense of result volume or truncation, which matters for a history-listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains what `file` selects (a concept, matching link targets, plus git commits) and implies `bundle` via 'the bundle's recent entries,' but says nothing about `limit` (default 20) — a meaningful omission for a paginated history tool. Partial compensation only.

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 the resource is a history log returned newest-first and describes two distinct read modes (per-file concept log + git commits vs. bundle-wide recent entries). It clearly separates reading from the sibling `record` which writes entries. It never states an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the two-mode behavior description makes the purpose recognizable.

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?

Explicitly gives the branching condition: 'With file' vs 'Without,' so an agent knows which mode its input selects. It also names `record` as the write alternative, routing the user away from this read tool when they want to add an entry. No mention of `search`/`list`/`get` alternatives for adjacent retrieval needs.

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