List History

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two distinct behaviors, states that all task entries under a date shard are listed, and gives the ordering of shards (newest first). The lack of detail about output shape is acceptable because an output schema is present, and 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately explains the two invocation modes in a compact, scannable way.

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 one optional parameter, clear schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers both call modes and the key ordering behavior. It does not specify the ordering of task entries within a date shard, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the available schema/output schema.

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 schema already documents the date format and the empty-string meaning, so the baseline is met. The description goes further by adding behavioral semantics: supplying a date yields every task entry under that shard, and omitting it returns shards newest first. This extra meaning helps the agent predict results more accurately.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('deep history archive'), and clearly describes the two modes: with a date it lists task entries under that date shard, without one it lists all date shards. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_tasks or read_history_task, but the 'deep history' scope is distinguishable enough.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the date parameter versus omit it, which directly guides invocation. However, it does not explicitly discuss tool selection relative to alternatives such as list_tasks or read_history_task; the 'deep history' framing implies the use case but leaves the comparison implicit.

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