doc_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only reveals the output shape: hash ← parent_hash and the committing agent. It does not disclose whether the chain is ordered newest-first, how limit truncates results, whether agent_id filters the chain, or whether the current version is included.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The core concept is front-loaded, though it is somewhat cryptic and would benefit from a few precise clarifying phrases.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is too sparse. It identifies the return concept but omits ordering, limit behavior, agent_id filtering semantics, and any usage context. The presence of an output schema helps, but it is not visible here and the description does not stand on its own.

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 compensate. It only hints at the agent-related parameter by mentioning 'o agente que commitou cada uma'. It does not explain doc_id, limit, or agent_id semantics, leaving the agent to infer them from parameter names alone.

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 states the resource (version chain of a document) and the key content: hash values, parent links, and the committing agent. This distinguishes it from tools like doc_info or doc_get, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer doc_history over related tools such as doc_info, doc_read, or doc_commit. The description implies a history retrieval tool, but it does not explain ordering, limits, filtering, or when this data would be more relevant than similar alternatives.

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