sysknife_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only safety and that no prior plan is needed, which are key traits. However, it omits ordering (e.g. most recent first), pagination behavior beyond limit, retention or permissions, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-free but audit-oriented list tool.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and safety, then filters, then return shape. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation, with no wasted words.

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 a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides the essential context: safety, plan-independence, filter set, and return container. Only minor details such as ordering and retention are 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with examples. The description restates the filters and adds 'canonical action name' and the default limit of 20, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List past SysKnife audit-log entries.' This is clearly distinct from sysknife_apt_history_list (APT history) and sysknife_audit_verify (verification), though no sibling is named explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous 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?

Explicitly says it is 'Read-only and safe to call without prior sysknife_plan,' which gives a clear condition relative to a critical sibling. It does not explain when to prefer this over sysknife_audit_verify or apt history, but the primary usage context is clear.

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