file_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool only tracks changes made through MCP tools, which is useful scope information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'View' implies it) or mention any side effects, prerequisites, or limits like retention.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding scope. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what is shown (MCP-tool changes with timestamps and details) and implies the safety profile via 'View'. Minor gaps include not addressing whether history persists across reboots or covering default behavior, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('last' for record count, 'path' for file filtering), so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of 'timestamps and details' hints at output but not parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 verb ('View') and resource ('modification history for files'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping the history to changes made through MCP tools (write, patch, sed, chmod, delete). This makes it unambiguous when compared to file_read, file_write, or file_delete.

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 is for auditing MCP-tool changes, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives (e.g., use file_read for current content). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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