File History

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: 'Uses --follow to track renames.' This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand renames handling.

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 plus a note, front-loaded with the primary action and use cases. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description gives a high-level idea of output fields (who, when, how much, why). It covers prerequisites and behavior. A more detailed output description would be beneficial, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a listing tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a behavioral note about --follow, which relates to path handling, but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 shows the full commit history of a specific file, with details on who changed it, when, how much, and why. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., hotspots, churn) by focusing specifically on file commit history.

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 explicit use cases (understanding file evolution, bug introduction, module tracing) and a prerequisite (require repo_path if not in git repo). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings.

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