History status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Report'. It goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the specific status dimensions the tool exposes, such as retention limits and rollback eligibility. No hidden mutation or side effects are suggested.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Report') and then lists the report contents in a clear, parallel sequence. Every clause contributes useful information with no 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?

For a no-parameter status tool with a rich output schema, the description covers exactly what an agent needs to decide when to call it and what to expect conceptually. It explains the scope (history database status) without needing to enumerate return fields, since an output schema exists.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The schema fully covers the empty parameter set, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-specific detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resource ('history database'), then enumerates the concrete facets covered: location, recording state, size, retention limits, and rollback eligibility. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like repovive_list_history, repovive_purge_history, or repovive_undo_last_change.

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 makes the context obvious: this is a read-only status/summary command for the history system, distinct from operations on individual history entries or revisions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is clear enough that no overlap with siblings is apparent.

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