Get Publish History

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only listing operation, adding the contextual detail that project context is required. It does not go into pagination behavior, ordering, or empty-result semantics, but for a simple read-only tool the annotation covers the main safety concern.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outputs, plus a short prerequisite clause. No filler; every word adds information.

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?

For a simple listing tool with a fully described schema, the description tells the agent what data will be returned and what context must be established. With no output schema, a small explicit note about default ordering or pagination would make it fully complete, but the essentials are present.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra meaning about skip/take or GUID formats, so the baseline of 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 opens with the verb 'List', identifies the resource ('a version was published'), and names the concrete data returned ('when', 'to which target', 'by whom'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_version or get_scheduled_publishes without opening the schema.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite, 'Requires project context', which tells the agent that set_context must be called first. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when this tool should be preferred over similarly named publish/version tools, leaving that to inference.

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