get_review_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and runs entirely within Claude Code, implying no external API calls. The read-only nature is clear from the verb 'view'. It does not explicitly mention that it reads from a local file, but the parameter documentation covers that.

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 very concise with two short sentences for purpose and one sentence for the free note. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, earning 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its purpose and key output fields. The schema explains parameters. Without an output schema, the description mentions what the output shows (scores, issues). It could mention ordering or pagination but is sufficient for a basic history tool.

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 parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'view' and resource 'past UIMax reviews'. It lists the data fields (when reviews were run, scores, issues) and frames the use case as understanding frontend health over time, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_review_stats' which likely provides aggregate statistics.

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 says 'Use this to understand the project's frontend health over time' and notes the tool is free, which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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