history

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: the return shape [{sha, date, message}], the 'truncated' flag when commits exceed limit, and the untracked-path edge case returning an empty list. Only minor gaps remain (pagination semantics beyond clamping).

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then layers return format and edge cases. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure with parentheticals slightly hurts scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills that gap by describing the returned list structure and the untracked/truncated edge cases. It is nearly complete for a read-only history tool, missing only richer pagination guidance.

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 67%, with path and limit already documented (including min/max). The description largely restates the schema's vault-vs-note semantics and the 1-200 clamp, adding little param meaning beyond it, though it does reinforce the omission behavior.

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 ('version history for a note (or the whole vault)') and names the git source, clearly separating it from siblings like read_note or restore. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It implies when it applies by distinguishing note-level from vault-level history ('or the whole vault', 'omit path'), but it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit guidance.

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