work_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filter dimensions but does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether no-match calls return empty results. It is consistent with annotations but adds only modest behavioral context.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Find recorded work and its history') and then lists the filter dimensions. There is no wasted text.

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 no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what the tool returns at a high level and which filters exist. However, it omits the required project_id and does not clarify pagination semantics, so an agent has to rely heavily on the schema.

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 carries more responsibility. It adds meaning by identifying task, session, path, branch, and commit as search keys, but it omits the required project_id and the after/limit pagination parameters, leaving an important invocation gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('recorded work and its history'), and it lists the search dimensions. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as work_update or plan_read, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clearly implies a read/query use case: use this tool when you need to find recorded work by various criteria. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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