phabricator_repository_file_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get commit history' without mentioning that the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are required, or what the response format looks like (e.g., list of commits). Pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset params) is not described.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include brief usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's 9 parameters and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (e.g., list of commits with diff details), how pagination works, or the relationship between parameters like commit and branch. An agent would need to infer these from the parameter names alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as clarifying the role of optional parameters like against, needDirectChanges, or needChildChanges. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description is redundant with the schema.

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: 'Get commit history for a file or directory path in a Diffusion repository'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commit history'), differentiating it from sibling tools like phabricator_repository_file_content (gets file content) and phabricator_commit_search (searches commits). The scope is well-defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as phabricator_repository_browse or phabricator_commit_search. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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