history_providers

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

The description highlights 'Read-only' behavior, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It lacks further details on side effects or error conditions.

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 very concise (one sentence plus a fragment). It is front-loaded but could be better structured as a single complete sentence.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (likely describing the list), the description is sufficient for a simple listing operation. It could elaborate on what a history provider is.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description need not add parameter info; baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'List available history providers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating its function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'history_query' which queries history data.

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 implies usage context ('Read-only, bridge plane') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied but not guided.

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