list_operation_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both successes and failures are returned and that token values and file content are redacted, which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but for a simple listing tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds necessary detail about redaction, every sentence 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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope (local MCP calls), content (success/failure), and privacy aspects (redaction). It doesn't describe return format or ordering, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 schema defines a single parameter 'limit' with clear type, min, max, and default. The description doesn't mention this parameter, but the schema is self-explanatory. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds no additional meaning, though the parameter's purpose is self-evident from its name and constraints.

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 verb and resource: 'List local MCP tool calls', and adds specificity by noting it includes both successes and failures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly SharePoint-related and focus on entities like pages or lists.

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 the tool is for auditing or reviewing local MCP tool call history, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly list exclusion criteria or alternatives, but its unique purpose among siblings makes the usage context obvious.

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