get_github_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the cost ($0.05 USDC via x402), which is a key behavioral aspect, and states the return type (array of daily digest objects). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. While cost and return type add transparency, the lack of explicit safety or side-effect disclosure leaves a gap.

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 concise (two sentences) yet packs essential information: purpose, configurability, what it tracks, return type, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with supporting details, making it easy to parse. No wasted words.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return type, cost, and configurable window. It does not detail the structure of the 'digest objects' or provide error handling information, but given the context (sibling tools suggest a suite, and the agent can infer typical behavior), it is largely complete. A slightly more explicit return-structure note would push it to 5.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'days' and 'limit' already described in the input schema (ranges and defaults). The description's mention of 'configurable lookback window' aligns with 'days' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema is fully descriptive, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('historical daily GitHub digests'), and the essence ('trending repo analysis over a configurable lookback window'). It also differentiates from siblings like 'get_github_digest' (likely the latest) and 'get_github_repos' (related but distinct) by emphasizing the historical and time-series nature.

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 implies usage for historical analysis over a window (1-30 days) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. It mentions the lookback window but lacks 'use this when you need X, otherwise use Y' guidance. The presence of sibling tools (e.g., 'get_github_digest') suggests a natural context, but it's left to inference rather than spelled out.

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