history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for side-effect transparency. Calling it a change log strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed verdict types give useful context, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe how the limit parameter affects the returned log.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource type and then lists the distinguishing entry fields. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is mostly sufficient, covering what entries contain and their verdict types. It is incomplete regarding the effect of limit and does not explicitly state the read-only nature of the operation.

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 for the only parameter, limit, is 0%, and the description never mentions limit or its meaning. The description therefore fails to clarify whether limit controls the number of log entries and how results are ordered.

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 identifies the tool as the change log for the toolset and enumerates the fields carried by each entry (old/new value, reason, proposal id, verdict), which tells an agent what it will get. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', and while it is distinguishable from undo/revert_all/rate by being a log, it does not directly contrast with those siblings.

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 implies the tool is for reviewing past writes and their verdicts, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to call history instead of undo, revert_all, or rate, nor does it mention exclusions or ordering of the log.

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