work_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds that the tool searches by identifiers, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema parameters imply.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that states the operation, resource, and key filters without filler. It earns its place and adds value without repeating schema details verbosely.

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?

For a read-only search tool with a nested schema, the description plus annotations and structured schema constraints are largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the phrase 'recorded work and its history,' though more explicit return-value detail would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming task, session, path, branch, and commit as filter dimensions. However, it omits the required project_id and the after/limit pagination controls, leaving those semantics entirely to the schema.

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 action ('Find') on a clear resource ('recorded work and its history') and enumerates the search dimensions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like work_update and work_claim, which imply mutation rather than retrieval.

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 use when historical work records are needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is present but left to inference rather than being directly stated.

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