description_history

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining snapshots, line diffs against the previous version, what `current` means, and how blame attributes each line to a version and author.

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 front-loaded with a clear definition and proceeds logically through return semantics, blame behavior, and usage. It is appropriately sized for a tool with an output schema, though the `current` and `blame` sentences overlap somewhat with structured documentation.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return fields, the description supplies all remaining context an agent needs: what the tool retrieves, what blame does, and when to reach for it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description elaborates on the `blame` effect and mentions `current`, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides for `issue` and `blame`.

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 clearly states the resource: past versions of a description, with when, by whom, and line diffs. It is specific about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_issue or comment.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to see when and by whom a section or tick changed before overwriting or disputing it. No alternative tools or when-not conditions are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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