list_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds the legacy status and performance comparison, which is useful context. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any error or authorization details.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. The note about the faster sibling is valuable and succinctly placed.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and an important performance caveat. It lacks details on return value structure, pagination behavior, or legacy-specific caveats, which would enhance completeness.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (limit, filePath, sessionId), so the schema already covers semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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's function ('List edit history'), its purpose ('for debugging'), and its legacy status. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by noting that list_file_snapshots is much faster, effectively differentiating it.

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 provides a clear alternative ('list_file_snapshots is much faster') and implies that this tool is for debugging scenarios. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the legacy label and performance note offer practical guidance.

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