gid_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., restore modifies history), permissions needed, output format, or error conditions. The description only lists actions without explaining consequences or behavior.

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 extremely concise with one short phrase, no filler words. However, it sacrifices informative detail. It is front-loaded with the key actions, earning a high conciseness score despite brevity.

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?

Given four parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., action defaults to list), how versions are specified, or what each action returns. More context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., does not explain default action, required combinations, or parameter relationships). 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 clearly states the verb 'Manage' and the resource 'graph version history', and enumerates the three supported actions (list, diff, restore). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gid_read or gid_edit_graph, providing a specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain when to use each action or how gid_history relates to other gid_ tools. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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