infomaniak_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, making the safety profile clear. The description adds beyond annotations by revealing the content semantics (destructive actions) and the inline undoability reference, which is useful for decision-making. It doesn't detail session boundaries or additional behaviors, but the added value is meaningful.

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, both dense with information. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the reversal context. No wasted words; every phrase 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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description covers the essentials. It could mention the limit parameter and clarify 'current session,' but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. The undoability hook provides extra context not present in the structured fields.

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?

With 1 parameter (limit) and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not mention the limit parameter at all. Although the schema provides type, min, max, and default, the description should have explained how limit controls the list size or that it's optional. This is a clear 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing destructive actions from the current session, most recent first. It also specifies a unique distinguishing feature—each entry includes undoability via infomaniak_undo—which differentiates it from sibling audit/search tools.

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 when to use: to review destructive actions in the session and determine reversibility. It references infomaniak_undo as the companion tool, providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like infomaniak_audit_log_search or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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