rtfm_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the snapshot mechanism ('Each time a file is re-synced, its previous content is saved as a snapshot'), and the verbs 'Show' and 'retrieve' indicate a read-only operation. It does not discuss edge cases or restrictions, but the core behavioral trait is covered.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential background about snapshots. Every word 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?

All parameters are documented in the schema and the snapshot mechanism is explained, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the returned history or retrieved version looks like. An agent may not know whether it gets a list of version numbers, metadata, or file content. This is a moderate gap given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mirrors the role of the version parameter. No additional detail about source, project, or version formats is provided.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Show version history of an indexed file, or retrieve a specific version.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling search, graph, and discovery tools by focusing on historical snapshots. The second sentence adds insight into how history is captured.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool when you need a file's version history or a particular saved version. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of fully explicit usage routing.

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