palinode_history

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds useful behavioral facts not present in the schema: 'Tracks renames (--follow)' and 'includes diff stats per commit.' There is no contradiction with the annotations. More detail on output ordering or pagination would be nice, but not necessary for this read operation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a behavioral note and one targeted usage instruction. 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?

There is no output schema, but the detail parameter's description in the input schema already explains the return structure for summary and full modes (hash/date/message/stats vs unified diff body). Combined with the tool description's rename tracking and diff stats, the agent has enough information to invoke and parse the tool. Minor details like ordering or pagination are not critical for this read-only history operation.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented: limit default, detail enum values, and file_path relative to the memory directory. The description mentions detail='full' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 begins with 'Show the change history of a memory file,' a specific verb+resource that clearly orients the agent. It also adds distinctive behavior ('Tracks renames (--follow)', 'diff stats per commit') that separates it from related siblings like palinode_diff or palinode_blame, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 use case is clearly stated ('change history of a memory file'), and the instruction 'Use detail='full' for the commit-level evolution view' gives concrete guidance on parameter selection. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools or say when to choose history over blame/diff, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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