tunnel_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by stating it 'shows' data, and details the output contents. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any permissions, which would be ideal for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and a bullet-like list of output items. Every word serves a purpose; no unnecessary filler.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema (not shown but implied), the description explains what the tool does and what it returns (total conversations, thinking stage distribution, etc.). It is complete for a simple query tool.

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 explain the single parameter 'domain'. The description focuses entirely on the output and does not clarify what constitutes a 'domain' or provide examples/format hints. This leaves the parameter underspecified.

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 it provides a 'meta-view of your engagement with a domain over time' and lists specific data it returns (total conversations, thinking stage distribution, importance peaks, cognitive patterns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tunnel_state' (likely current state) and 'cognitive_patterns' (broader patterns).

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 for historical domain analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tunnel_state' or 'cognitive_patterns'. No exclusions or 'when not to use' information is given.

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