list_analysis_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of filenames and summaries, and that it relates to previously saved data. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely), authentication needs, rate limits, or ordering of results. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 very concise, with only a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance, and ends with argument and return description. Every sentence adds value, no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter meaning, and return format. It also links to the relevant sibling tool. It is complete for the context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to the single parameter 'limit': it explains it is the maximum number to retrieve and gives a default value. This compensates for the schema's lack of description, making the parameter semantics clear and useful.

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 '조회한다' (queries) and the resource '과거 분석 결과 히스토리' (history of past analysis results). It ties the tool to a specific sibling tool 'save_analysis_result', distinguishing it from other list tools like 'list_notion_pages'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: when the user mentions phrases like 'like last time' or 'what was organized before'. It also notes that it returns results saved by 'save_analysis_result'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear for the intended use case.

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