phabricator_repository_file_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds some scope by clarifying that the history applies to a file or directory path in a Diffusion repository, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, branch/commit interaction, or return characteristics.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are immediately clear.

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 schema is rich and the read-only annotation covers safety, so the minimal description is workable. However, for a nine-parameter history query with no output schema, the description does not explain the return shape, pagination expectations, or how branch, commit, and against interact.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that path may be a file or directory but does not add syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get commit history for a file or directory path in a Diffusion repository. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as repository_browse, file_content, or commit_search.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that this tool is for file/directory history, but there is no routing guidance versus commit_search or repository_browse.

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