self_verify_history

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

Annotations correctly declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description frames the tool purely as a 'List' operation and never mentions that prune_retention plus confirm can permanently delete state entries. Beyond the annotations it only adds ordering and the source state store, leaving the destructive path entirely to the 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. Dense jargon ('issueops state', 'snapshot generation time') costs a little clarity but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what a returned checkpoint looks like, and it does not. For a five-parameter tool that can also plan and execute retention pruning, the definition is thin, though the 100% schema coverage carries most of the load.

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 100%, so limit, prefix, confirm, prune_retention and retention_limit are already fully documented in structured data. The description adds nothing about any parameter — no mention of prefix scoping or retention behavior — so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('saved self-verification loop summary checkpoints from issueops state'), and the ordering ('sorted by snapshot generation time'). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema, though it never distinguishes this from look-alike siblings such as self_verify_candidates or state_list.

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?

'For quick baseline/candidate discovery' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus self_verify_candidates/self_verify_compare/state_list, and no stated preconditions. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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