sysknife_apt_history_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description mostly restates 'read-only' and 'no params' (redundant), adding only the 'recent' scope hint — it does not explain how far back history goes or what entries contain.

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?

Single short line, front-loaded with the action and resource. Slight waste in repeating 'read-only' twice and 'no params', which duplicate the annotations, but overall very tight.

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 simple no-param read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is serviceable. However, it leaves 'recent' undefined (time window, entry count) and does not hint at return content, which would help an agent decide when this is the right call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes 'no params', matching the empty schema, with nothing further needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('show recent apt transaction history') and names the underlying action AptHistoryList. An agent can distinguish it from apt_list_installed/apt_show/apt_list_upgradable based on 'transaction history', though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'recent apt transaction history' but the description never states when to prefer this over apt_show or apt_list_installed, nor does it give exclusions. Adequate for a simple no-param read, but no explicit routing guidance.

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