hedgedoc_list_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auth requirement and error condition ('requires a valid session — will raise an error if not authenticated') and describes the return format in detail. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'list' implies it. This is strong transparency for a simple read 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: first states purpose, second covers return format and auth. Front-loaded and efficient with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, and authentication requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the output fields, which is acceptable.

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 'List the logged-in user's recently viewed and pinned notes', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create/read/update/note_info/whoami, as it focuses on history.

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 retrieving recently viewed and pinned notes but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions are mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough to imply when it is appropriate.

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