get_watch_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it only reveals that the return contains timestamps. It says nothing about ordering (newest first?), pagination, or whether history grows unbounded, though the read-only nature is strongly implied by "List". The presence of an output schema lowers the bar for return-shape disclosure.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the parenthetical adding real clarification. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is so short that there was little to trim in the first 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It omits ordering/pagination expectations and any hint of how this history relates to get_snapshot_diff, which is the main gap given the dense sibling set.

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?

Only one parameter (uuid) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as "The watch UUID". The description adds matching scope ("a watched URL") but no format, lookup, or failure semantics beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (snapshot history) scoped to "a watched URL", which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like get_watch or get_snapshot_diff, so an agent must infer the boundary. Clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_watch (current state) or get_snapshot_diff (change comparison), and no note that the uuid must reference an existing watch. Usage is only implied by the name and purpose. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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