query_history_assistant

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds almost nothing beyond that — it doesn't state what the tool inspects, what happens when Claude Code is not installed, or what the caller should do with the result. No contradictions with annotations, but very little added value.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single cryptic fragment that fails to convey the operation. Brevity here costs clarity rather than earning it.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the full burden of explaining what the tool returns (presumably a capability/availability flag) and when to invoke it. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the return value or usage context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 'Whether Claude can answer in the app (Claude Code installed)' is a sentence fragment that never names a verb or resource — it is unclear whether the tool checks capability, enables an assistant, or reports installation state. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling assistant tools such as query_history_assistant_warm or sql_editor_assistant. An agent cannot confidently tell what this tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With many near-named alternatives (query_history_assistant_warm, query_history_ask, query_history_answer), the absence of routing guidance is a serious gap.

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