akb_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states that each entry is a Git commit and describes the content (who, when, why), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or error handling, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and content, the second provides actionable guidance linking to a sibling tool. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description gives a good overview: each entry is a Git commit with who, when, why. It also mentions using the commit hash with akb_get. However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, or whether all versions are included.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema parameters (uri and limit). It does not explain URI format or limit context, which might be helpful.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving version history of a document, including who changed it, when, and why. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the use of commit hashes with akb_get, indicating a specific role.

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 provides context for usage by linking to akb_get and implying that this tool is for history retrieval. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives like akb_diff or akb_provenance, which could be used for similar purposes.

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