list_history_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states the operation is 'list' and 'enumerate', implying a read-only action, and it clarifies that the tool does not return snapshot content. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention any permissions needed, or describe error conditions (e.g., invalid path). While the read-only nature is strongly implied, the absence of explicit behavioral guarantees leaves a gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence states the purpose, followed by bullet-point notes that add constraints and clarifications. There is no fluff, and the most important information (purpose and usage constraint) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema (list). The description covers the purpose, path constraint, and indicates the return type (list of entries). It does not mention error handling, sorting, or recursion, but for a basic enumeration tool this is acceptable. Given the lack of annotations, it might be expected to state its read-only nature explicitly, but the description adequately conveys the core behavior.

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 only provides a default value for 'path' with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that the path is the history directory path and adding the critical constraint that it must start with '/history' or '/data/history'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this added meaning is essential and provided.

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 explicitly states what it does: '列出历史快照目录下的文件和文件夹' (list files and folders in the history snapshot directory). It further clarifies that it does not return snapshot content, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_history_file' and 'get_block_changes'. This is a clear verb and resource with a scope boundary.

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?

The description gives practical usage context: it is for enumerating the history directory, and it includes a path constraint ('must start with /history or /data/history'). It implicitly tells users not to use it for content retrieval by stating it does not return snapshot content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as 'get_history_file' for content or 'get_block_changes' for diffs, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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