get_note_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of --follow and the limit default/max, which are behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permission needs, or error behavior. The behavior is partially transparent, but safety aspects are omitted.

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 compact and structured, with a clear purpose statement, a behavioral note, and then formatted arguments and returns. No redundancy, and every sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 is simple, and the description covers the purpose, arguments, and returns at a high level. Given that an output schema exists, not detailing the return format is acceptable. It could mention read-only nature or error conditions, but for a basic retrieval tool, it is largely complete. A 4 reflects that it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it specifies that note_id is a UUID string and that limit has a max of 100 (the schema only shows a default of 10). Both parameters are clearly explained, and since the schema description coverage is 0%, this is essential and well done.

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 that it gets version history for a note from git, and specifies the use of --follow to track file moves/renames. It distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_note_version (which restores) and other related tools by identifying the specific action (retrieve history) and resource (note).

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 usage: when you need version history of a note. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear. There is no mention of exclusions, but the tool's purpose is self-evident, so a 4 is appropriate.

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