history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that results combine user undoable edits and Krita's undo stack and that done=false means undone, but it does not state read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or side effects.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the key content front-loaded. It wastes no words, though the noun-phrase phrasing makes the action less explicit than it could be.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, while the description explains only what the history contains. It omits return structure, limit behavior, ordering, and the relationship to undo/redo, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent that must call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter, limit, is not mentioned in the description. Its name and default value make it somewhat intuitive, but no behavioral semantics are added.

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 identifies the resource as undoable edits plus Krita's own undo stack, so an agent can infer it retrieves history. However, it gives no verb such as list or get and does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling undo/redo operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus undo or redo, nor any stated prerequisites. The content implies inspection rather than mutation, but the agent must infer that.

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