List action history

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it's a browse/read operation on a log. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'newest first' ordering, 'local' scope, and the specific data fields returned and filters available. It doesn't contradict annotations and gives useful context about what the tool exposes.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and returned fields, the second covers filters and the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place—compact yet complete.

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 is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and how it differs from the closest sibling. Since an output schema exists, return format details aren't required in the description. It doesn't explain pagination or defaults, but those are in the schema. Overall well-rounded for a read-only audit 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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description mentions filters (target, tool, actor, status, age) that map to parameters but doesn't add new semantics beyond that. Baseline is 3 because the schema covers everything; the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 it lists a server's local log of state-changing calls, specifying the exact fields returned (when, access token, tool, target, success, revision). It distinguishes itself from repovive_list_revisions by explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative for viewing entity versions.

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?

It explicitly says 'This is the audit trail — use repovive_list_revisions to see an entity's versions.' This gives direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and also lists filter options (target, tool, actor, status, age). No ambiguity about whether to use this tool versus alternatives.

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