changedetection_list_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it lists the returned fields (uuid, count, snapshots with timestamp and iso_time) and notes that server filesystem paths are discarded, a non-obvious data-sanitization behavior. It omits ordering and any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then endpoint, then the return/stripping note. The literal REST path is mildly redundant for an agent but costs little. No padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's field list carries the return-value burden and does so adequately, plus it flags dropped filesystem paths. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only snapshot ordering and whether history is truncated are unstated.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, with the UUID pattern and 'Watch UUID.' documented in the schema. The description's 'for a watch' merely restates that the uuid identifies a watch, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List snapshot timestamps for a watch') and the concrete return shape, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_snapshot (content) and get_diff (changes). An agent can identify this as the lightweight history index 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a watch' — an agent can infer you call this to enumerate snapshots before fetching one or deleting history, but no alternatives or preconditions are named. No explicit when-not guidance.

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