agy_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that results are summaries/previews rather than full content, but says nothing about ordering, truncation, or how many entries exist beyond the implicit limit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and immediately followed by the routing hint. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the missing explanation of include_tests is a real gap an agent would hit at call time.

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 carry parameter meaning and it does not. Neither 'limit' (presumably max entries returned) nor 'include_tests' (what test entries it adds) is mentioned, leaving a non-obvious flag entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (local history summaries and task previews), and explicitly contrasts with agy_status for full prompts/replies. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening a schema, though 'task previews' remains slightly fuzzy.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative ('Use agy_status for full prompts and replies'), which tells the agent when to pick the other tool. It does not state when NOT to use this tool relative to the other ten siblings, but the primary routing decision is covered.

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