list_world_history_tool

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output contents ('world hashes with timestamps and reasons') but does not mention pagination, ordering, potential performance impact, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, the return value, and the primary use cases without any filler or redundant information. Every element earns its place.

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 straightforward list tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose, return content, and rationale. However, since there is no output schema, it could be more explicit about the exact response structure (e.g., array format, ordering) to be fully complete.

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 schema provides no description for projectId (0% coverage). The description indirectly clarifies the parameter by stating the tool lists history 'for a project's synthesis theory,' implying projectId identifies which project. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter's format or constraints, leaving the agent to infer.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('historical world states for a project's synthesis theory'), and specifies what is returned ('world hashes with timestamps and reasons'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list runs, assertions, or backends, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'useful for understanding theory evolution and choosing rollback targets.' This provides clear context on when to employ the tool, although it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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