list_session_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'recent' qualifier and 'tool call' resource, but does not elaborate on behavior such as ordering, pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter, or whether the current call is included. Without annotations this would be a 2, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and object. It could earn a 5 if it included 'session' for extra clarity, but as-is it is efficient and appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent the tool returns a list of recent tool calls. However, it does not specify the return format, whether the history is scoped to the current session, or any ordering semantics, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The presence of annotations reduces the need for safety details, but the description still leaves some ambiguity.

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 has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'limit' is described with a default and maximum. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent tool call history'), which clearly identifies the operation. It is distinct from any sibling tool; no other tool lists session history. However, it omits the word 'session' explicitly, relying on the tool name to provide that context, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage is implied by the description: an agent would call this when it needs to review recent tool call history. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like get_session_context or clear_session_context, and no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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