get_edit_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful clarification that this is the undo stack, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any limitations. The non-destructive nature is not explicitly stated.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and object. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks guidance on the parameter, behavioral transparency, and usage context. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning max_entries and clarifying the read-only nature. The output schema may cover return format, but the description does not compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 sole parameter max_entries has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it either. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone, which is insufficient for an undocumented parameter.

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 returns recent edit history (the undo stack) from the open project, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from undo/redo which perform actions, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses a point for sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as undo/redo. There is no mention of usage context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when inspection of history is appropriate.

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