Note History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the kind filter values and the presence of per-kind counts, which is useful. However, it does not explain ordering, pagination behavior, whether counts are overall or filtered, or whether only successful interactions are logged. Partial behavioral transparency, but several important behaviors are left unstated.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior. The kind filter list is useful and included without unnecessary elaboration. It loses a point only because the structure is slightly choppy and the limit/offset parameters are ignored.

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 description conveys the primary purpose and main filter, and an output schema exists to clarify return shape. However, it does not explain how limit and offset interact with the history and counts, nor does it clarify whether per-kind counts are affected by the filter. For a moderately complex read-history tool, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the 'kind' parameter's allowed values and implies 'note_id' identifies the note, but it says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset'. For a tool with four parameters, leaving two entirely unexplained is a significant gap.

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 the tool returns every logged interaction for one note, with kind filtering and per-kind counts. This is specific enough to identify the resource and behavior, though it relies on the title to establish it is a history/retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by focusing on interaction logs for a single note.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when you need the activity log for one specific note, optionally filtered by kind. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like recent_changes, search_notes, or read_note, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is inferred rather than explicit.

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