History — Show

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding semantic context beyond that: the entry contains before and after state, and the before state is what a revert would restore — a real behavioral insight for an agent reasoning about undo.

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, zero filler, with the read-only tag and the core scope front-loaded. Every sentence carries information.

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 shape needs no explanation, and the description covers what the entry contains and its revert relevance. The only real gap is omitting how the required entry_id is sourced.

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% and the single entry_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions entry_id, its format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (one history entry), plus the distinguishing content: full before/after state. It contrasts adequately with history_list via the 'one ... in full' framing, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied — call it when you have an entry_id and need the complete entry — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g., obtain entry_id from history_list first), and no stated exclusions.

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