Todo history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying exactly which change events are included and indicating the returned data (who made the change and when), which is useful given there is no output schema.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and supplies the key details (change types, actor, timestamp) without any filler or redundancy.

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 tool with a single integer parameter, the description is complete: it explains what the tool shows, what events are included, and what information is returned. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's clarity about the return contents.

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%, and the parameter already has a clear description ('The todo id, e.g. 3'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond implying that the id refers to 'one item,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('change history for one item'), and it enumerates the change types (create/edit/claim/release/complete). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like todo_add or todo_edit, which perform mutations rather than display 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 phrase 'for one item' clearly signals that this tool is for per-item history, not for listing todos or viewing aggregate state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling mutation and list tools.

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