mhangani_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the source path (~/.mhangani) and ordering (newest first), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe the output format or any side effects. The information is useful but minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes only essential details (source and ordering). There is no redundancy or excessive length.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context regarding its purpose and data source. However, it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, and given the sibling tool mhangani_audit, a note about when to use history versus running a new audit would enhance completeness.

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 has one parameter 'limit' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. While 'limit' typically implies a maximum count, the lack of any explanation means the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 tool's function: 'List previous audits stored in ~/.mhangani (newest first).' It specifies the verb (list), resource (previous audits), and source directory, distinguishing it from audit execution or reporting tools among 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 usage for browsing past audits, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like mhangani_report or mhangani_audit. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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