get_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. It discloses that the tool retrieves history, diffs, blame, and show details, and what information can be reviewed (who, what files, conflicts, when). However, it does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, or constraints beyond the parameter requirements.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence specifies the core action and resource, and the second adds valuable detail. No extraneous information or repetition.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary use cases (history, diffs, blame, show) and the type of information available. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavior when required parameters are missing, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description reiterates general capabilities (e.g., reviewing changes) but does not add new meaning to individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 'Retrieves version history, diffs, blame, or show details for the Project Brain.' It uses specific verbs ('retrieves') and resources ('version history'), and lists distinct actions (log, show, diff, blame), effectively distinguishing it from siblings get_context and propose_knowledge.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: 'Allows reviewing exactly who proposed what, what files changed, what conflicts occurred, and when.' It implies usage for historical review, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_context for current state.

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