get_history

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

Declares 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits' and explains return format including edge case ('empty array means the file has not been committed yet'). Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden and meets it.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Fully covers input (file_id), output shape, behavior, edge cases, and links to related tools. No gaps given single parameter and no 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 covers file_id at 100% with basic description. Description adds context about repo types (project vs KB backup) and that it reads the owning repo, adding value beyond schema. Baseline 3, but extra context warrants 4.

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?

Clearly states 'Return the git commit history for one file (newest first)' with specific output fields. Differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning get_diff and restore_file as complementary tools.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use to understand a file's evolution before editing or restoring' and suggests alternatives: 'Pair with get_diff' and 'use restore_file to roll back'.

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