get_install_history

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

The description explicitly notes the tool's data is in-memory and resets on restart, which is critical behavioral context beyond the input schema. It also lists the return fields. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function with field list, the second adds an important behavioral note. No superfluous text; information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, ephemeral storage, and implied read-only nature. Minor gap: could explicitly state it is read-only.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', and its description is already in the schema. The tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond 'recent' context. 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 clearly states the tool returns an audit log of recent install_dependency attempts, listing specific fields (timestamp, tool, package, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clear_install_history which clears the log.

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 implies it's for inspecting installation history, but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to use alternatives. No guidance on when-not-to-use or contrast with sibling tools like get_install_status or list_install_jobs.

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