get_context_history

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns history/context entries and references 'current session' continuity, but it doesn't describe ordering, time range, or whether entries are cross-session, leaving some ambiguity.

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 brief and well-structured with a short lead-in and a bulleted 'WHEN TO USE' list. It avoids fluff, though the bullets could be seen as somewhat redundant; overall it earns its 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 simple fetch tool without an output schema, this description supplies the essential purpose and usage conditions. It doesn't explain return format or potential differences from sibling tools, but it's enough for basic selection and invocation.

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 covers both parameters ('agent_id' required, 'limit' default 10) with descriptions, so the schema provides the meaning. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond that.

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 'Retrieve your recent file operation history and context entries' with a clear verb and resource. It narrows the scope to 'your recent' history, making it distinct from general project history, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_recent_changes.

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?

A dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section lists concrete scenarios like reviewing recently worked files and understanding operation sequences. This provides useful context for when to invoke the tool, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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