history_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely new context: newest-first ordering and the fact that entries include undo status and restorable deleted paragraphs. It stops short of behavior an agent would want, such as pagination or store-vs-document scope.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the identity of the resource before the details of its contents. No filler, though the back half packs three separate facts without much structure.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back. However, it omits pagination (the `cursor` field, `limit` of 200) and the alternate-store read mode, which an agent would need to use the tool repeatedly and correctly.

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 coverage is only 60%, and the description says nothing about any of the five parameters. The `kind` enum (batch/restore/undo/open/purge), `limit`, and `cursor` carry no description in either the schema or the text, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource — the undo log — and its ordering (newest first), plus what each entry holds (what changed, whether undone, deleted paragraphs). It implies a relationship to `restore` but never names the sibling list tools (`history_search`, `history_orphans`) it must be distinguished from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the tool is for reading the write/undo log, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as `history_search`, `revisions_list`, or `restore` as separate calls. An agent must infer usage entirely.

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