sdd_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the chronological ordering detail, which is useful but minimal. It does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or any edge cases, so it provides only mild context beyond structured data.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core action and provides a brief clarifying second sentence. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of pagination or filtering options beyond a vague 'for a project', the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use cursor for pagination, the phase filter, or consistency mode, leaving the agent under-informed for effective invocation.

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 low (29%), with only project and limit having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter information; it only mentions 'for a project'. With 7 parameters and several undocumented ones (phase, cursor, change_name, consistency, since_revision), the description fails to clarify their meaning or usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving SDD phase history for a project, showing contract transitions in chronological order. This distinctly separates it from siblings like sdd_get or sdd_list, which would retrieve current state rather than history.

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 implies usage for a specific project and history retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other sdd_* tools or mention any exclusions. It provides context but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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