Browse history

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond by disclosing the error behavior for unparseable 'since' input, returning a JSON error array instead of silently returning empty results. This is valuable behavioral context not in the annotations.

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: the first states purpose and ordering, the second gives usage guidance and error handling. It is front-loaded, with no wasted words, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 the output schema exists and the description covers purpose, filtering, ordering, and error behavior, the tool is fully specified for an agent. The description is complete for this 5-parameter optional-input tool without needing to explain return values.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explicitly stating these parameters can be combined, but it does not explain syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No compensation needed.

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 function: 'Filtered change history across all entities, newest first.' It uses a specific verb ('browse' implicitly via 'history') and resource ('all entities'), and the 'newest first' ordering adds precision. This distinguishes it from siblings like log_change, diff, and search.

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 explicit guidance on how to combine filter parameters ('since', 'entity_path', 'project', 'changeset_id') to scope results. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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