Get Node History

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the concept of 'full chronological mutation history,' which gives useful context about ordering and scope. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination limits, or possible errors, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 sentence that is cleanly structured with the verb at the start. It contains no unnecessary words and fully conveys the tool's function in an efficient manner.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the purpose but does not explain what a 'mutation history' entry contains or any potential limitations (e.g., performance for large histories). Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail on return value would improve completeness, but it is adequate for a basic use case.

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 both node_id and project described. The description does not add any extra detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and clearly specifies the resource: 'full chronological mutation history of a specific node.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node (which retrieves current state) and get_state_at_timestamp (which retrieves state at a specific time). It is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a complete historical record of changes to a node, which is a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for point-in-time state). It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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