Historial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the operations but omits that undo/redo/revert are state-mutating and potentially destructive (revert discards later steps), whether snapshots persist, permission requirements, or what happens on undo when no history exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the modes with no filler. It is compact and readable, though the parenthetical parameter hints are terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 5-parameter, multi-mode tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description leaves key gaps: the undocumented 'name' parameter, default document behavior, and the destructive consequences of revert. It is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 is only 20% (only 'doc' is documented). The description partly compensates by tying 'steps' to undo/redo and 'index' to revert, but leaves the 'name' parameter and the meaning of the action enum values (list/undo/redo/revert/snapshot semantics) only indirectly inferable.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: listing history steps, undo/redo, revert to a step, and create a snapshot. An agent can tell this is the history-management tool, though it bundles four distinct modes into one dispatch tool and offers no sibling differentiation despite the large sibling list.

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 implicitly maps modes to parameters ('revert con index', 'steps' for undo/redo), which hints at how to trigger each operation. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of defaults or ordering constraints.

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