history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the source (git history of claims.json), ordering (newest first), and limiting behavior (`limit` caps events), effectively conveying a read-only operation without side effects. It does not mention potential errors or auth requirements, but the described behavior is sufficient for this simple read tool.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a practical use case. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema present and only one optional parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, source, ordering, limiting, and a suggested scenario. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional 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 schema has only a 'limit' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description explicitly explains that `limit` caps how many events are returned, giving the parameter clear meaning and compensating fully for the missing schema description.

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 it provides a coordination timeline from git history, listing who claimed, finished, or released what and when. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that perform actions like claim, finish, release, etc., so it differentiates itself well.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'what has my partner been doing?' without needing them online, implying it is the appropriate tool for checking activity asynchronously. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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