quipu_entity_history

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond annotations by warning that current MAIN-history semantics do not certify composed/named-graph audit completeness, which affects how an agent should interpret results.

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 and front-loads the core action before adding the important limitation. It is efficient, though the second sentence uses dense domain terminology that could confuse an agent unfamiliar with MAIN-history semantics.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and an important audit caveat. It remains incomplete because it does not explain what the history result contains, such as whether it returns events, revisions, or ordering information.

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 iri parameter is only typed as a string in the schema. The description adds that the IRI must be exact, which is useful, but it does not document IRI syntax or provide examples, so compensation for the low schema coverage is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the entity-history endpoint for an exact IRI. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as quipu_entity, quipu_events, or quipu_graph_events.

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 by “for an exact IRI,” and the caveat about MAIN-history semantics usefully warns against relying on it for composed/named-graph audit completeness. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state the positive conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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