history_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states '조회합니다' (retrieve), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the history data is in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details. The brevity is a strength, but it borders on under-specification.

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's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'work history' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('limit' with clear constraints and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '작업 히스토리를 조회합니다' (Retrieve work history) states a clear verb ('조회합니다' - retrieve) and resource ('작업 히스토리' - work history), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like history_clear, history_goto, history_redo, or history_undo, leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of history it accesses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it retrieves recent actions, all history, or filtered entries. With sibling tools like history_clear and history_goto, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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