artifact_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the author appears as the API key prefix, that entries include commit message, content fingerprint, and current head status, and that results are newest first. This covers user-facing behaviors and consequences without being verbose. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the verb 'List' strongly implies no mutation.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a summary of entry fields, and a follow-up usage note. No filler or repetition of schema details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool has a moderate complexity with an output schema (though not inspected), and the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly: what to expect in entries, how to handle pagination via limit, and how to connect results to read_artifact/write_artifact. The description covers the complete workflow without requiring extra inference. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be fully restated.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (ref, full, limit), including defaults and max value. The description's only pointer is 'Use the returned version ids', which hints at the output structure rather than the parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'List the version history (git commits) of a mutable artifact, newest first.' This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_artifact and write_artifact, which handle individual versions. The mention of git commits and mutable artifacts clarifies the exact scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned version ids with read_artifact to inspect old iterations or write content back to revert. This is useful guidance on follow-up actions, but it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_history, which is similar in purpose. Still, the context is clear enough for a focused history tool.

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