List Histories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that entries are timestamps; it says nothing about ordering (newest first?), pagination behavior, or whether histories exist for trashed/unpublished docs. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is fair.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing guidance scored elsewhere rather than being gratuitous verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. But for a paginated history lister with an undocumented 'before' cursor and 'take' cap, ordering and pagination semantics are essential and absent, leaving the agent unable to page correctly.

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 25% — only 'take' is documented in the schema. The description does not compensate: 'before' is unexplained (cursor? timestamp? exclusive/inclusive?), 'workspaceId' is unexplained despite the tool being scoped 'for a doc', and even 'guid' is only implied by 'for a doc'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List doc histories') and parenthetically clarifies the payload is timestamps. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby read siblings like read_doc or get_doc that might also surface history.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (does the doc need to be published/versioned?), and no alternative named. The agent must infer that this is the tool for version history versus get_doc or read_doc.

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