engine_history_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful detail about the `before` filter and pagination semantics, but does not describe the return format, ordering, or whether any further constraints apply. This is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and the most important pagination detail without waste. The most critical usage instruction is front-loaded and the rest is direct.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover both behavior and return expectations. It provides a clear purpose and pagination guidance, but it does not describe what rows are returned or what fields they contain. For a simple list tool this is close to sufficient, but still leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the subtle `before` parameter well, including the `version <= before` behavior. However, `path` and `limit` are not explicitly described, and `limit` is left to inference from the pagination context.

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 identifies the resource as 'saved-version history of a file', which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `engine_history_content` or other history tools, so it misses the top score.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve saved-version history. It also gives actionable pagination guidance by explaining the `before` datetime cursor and how to page down using the last row's value. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is otherwise explicit.

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