adb_regression_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions listing and trend showing but does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only nature), performance, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the main action and adding the key optional capability. Every sentence 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover what the output looks like (e.g., list of baselines with dates and metrics). It does not specify the return format, leaving the agent without full context. The tool is simple but incomplete in this regard.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the sole parameter (packageName), with a clear description. The description adds minimal extra parameter detail (just restates optional filtering) but does provide broader context about trends. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 it lists saved regression baselines, optionally filtered by package name, and shows trends over time. This provides a specific verb ('list') and resource ('saved regression baselines') with additional capability, distinguishing it from related siblings like adb_regression_baseline (which creates baselines) and adb_regression_check (which checks).

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 viewing historical baselines but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. Given the sibling tools, some differentiation is implicit but not explicitly guided.

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