List Histories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover most behavioral traits. The description adds that histories are 'timestamps,' but does not disclose details like ordering, pagination semantics, or what constitutes a history entry. It adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description leaves key parameter semantics ambiguous, especially 'before' and 'workspaceId.' For a tool with 4 parameters, this description is too sparse to be complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 only 25% (only 'take' has a description). The description's 'for a doc' hints at the required 'guid' but does not explain 'before' (likely a time filter) or 'workspaceId.' Low coverage in the schema means the description should compensate, but it largely fails to do so.

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 operation: 'List doc histories (timestamps) for a doc.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('doc histories') with a clarifying parenthetical ('timestamps') and scope ('for a doc'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs, which list documents themselves.

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 the description: it lists history for a doc. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or mentions of related tools. The description is self-explanatory but lacks strategic context for an agent.

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