workspace_file_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the result is capped at the current version plus at most 10 previous ones. It says nothing about whether history is truncated for older files, whether the caller needs any permission, or what each version entry contains (revision id, timestamp, author), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (the 10-version cap) is present rather than buried. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a version entry looks like and how an agent would actually retrieve an older revision, since no sibling tool appears to serve that purpose. The version cap is the only structural detail given.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the single path identifies 'a shared file', which lightly clarifies the parameter's meaning, but adds no format, relative-vs-absolute, or scoping detail beyond that.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: version history of a shared file, with the returned window spelled out (current + up to 10 previous). An agent can distinguish this from workspace_get_file by the word 'history'. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling retrieval tools.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is the tool for inspecting prior revisions rather than fetching content, and there is no hint about whether workspace_get_file should be called first.

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