cutbolt_session_history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral content: the newest-first ordering and the exact pagination contract where a null cursor terminates iteration. It omits whether results are capped or how many entries exist in total, but the added value is above baseline.

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 sentences, ordered purpose-first, then limits, then pagination; nothing is padded. The 'limit defaults to 50 (1-200)' clause largely restates schema data, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description instructs the agent to feed back a field named next_before_revision that is documented nowhere. For a paginated listing tool, the return shape (cursor, item summaries) should be described, so the definition is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining the cursor relationship between the output field next_before_revision and the before_revision input, which the schema only describes tersely as 'Return entries older than this revision'. It does repeat the limit default/range already in the schema.

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 and resource ('Read ... revision summaries') plus ordering ('newest-first'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings cutbolt_session_get or cutbolt_session_apply, so it falls short of a 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 description gives a genuine usage rule for pagination ('Pass next_before_revision as before_revision for the next page; null means finished'), which tells the agent how to iterate. However, it never says when to prefer this over cutbolt_session_get or why you'd list history at all, so usage is only partially guided.

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