list_history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses row structure, UTC timestamps, stable ids, session-start marker rows, and relative version positions. These details materially help an agent interpret results and navigate history correctly. The description adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 the core action and row format, then moves to interpretation rules and parameter usage. It is dense but each sentence contributes useful information. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is not verbose.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the return rows, ordering, id stability, session markers, and relative version semantics. It also covers all three optional parameters. An agent has enough information to call and interpret this tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, filter, and favorites in detail. The description reinforces parameter usage in natural language, such as seeing more than 20 rows and searching by label, code, or favorite name. It adds little meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: lists versions of the music that played, newest first. It also defines the row format and distinguishes the history listing from getting current code or restoring a version. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 explains how to use the listing for version navigation, such as interpreting the newest row as what usually plays now and the next row as the previous version. It also explains how to use limit, filter, and favorites. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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