watchpoint_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads all writes before and after the current focus, implying it is a read-only operation with broad trace coverage. However, it does not mention any potential performance impact or prerequisites like an active session.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity with only two required params and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and behavior. It hints at the return value ('complete write history') but could be more explicit about the output format or limitations. Still, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema.

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' and the resource 'complete write history for a memory address across the trace', specifying scope beyond current focus. It distinguishes from sibling 'watch_variable' which likely monitors live changes rather than historical writes.

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 of memory writes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'watch_variable' or 'stack'. No when-not-to-use or condition information is given.

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