akb_history

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

The description indicates that each entry is a Git commit, providing some behavioral insight. But with no annotations, it misses additional transparency like whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks full disclosure.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a practical cross-reference. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and connects to a related tool. However, it lacks details about output format (e.g., list of commits), ordering (e.g., chronological), or pagination. Given the complexity and many siblings, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without adding extra semantic value.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves version history of a document, specifying the 'who, when, and why' details. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the use of commit hash with akb_get, making the purpose clear and specific.

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 a useful tip about using the commit hash with akb_get, implying when to combine tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like akb_diff or akb_provenance, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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