List Local Change History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it specifies the output contents, the session-based project context, and the no-projectId behavior, plus the open-project requirement. It does not describe failure behavior when the project is not open, but that is a minor gap given the explicit prerequisite.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states what it does, the second states what it returns, and the third delivers the prerequisite and caveat. The key constraints are front-loaded in a Note marker, making them easy to spot.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the returned item fields, the session-based context, the prerequisite, and the local-repository limitation. An agent has everything it needs to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, response_format, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by explicitly stating there is no projectId and that the tool uses session-based project context, which helps an agent understand why the parameter list is just one optional format choice. This exceeds the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List local change history for a project') and enumerates the return fields (versions, authors, timestamps, comments), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like openl_restore_project_local_change. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from the related mutation tool.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires the project to be opened (openl_open_project first)') and an exclusion ('not available for repository 'local''), giving clear guidance on when this tool is valid. It does not explicitly contrast this list operation with the sibling restore tool or other history-related commands, stopping just short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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