confer_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose ordering ('newest first'), scoping behavior ('Omit both filters for the whole project'), and hints that the output contains settled arguments on record. However, it leaves the 'peer' relationship undefined and does not mention response shape, side effects, or any access considerations.

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 with no filler: result and ordering first, scope instruction second, practical warning third. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though the first sentence is slightly awkward.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three mostly undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It never defines the subject/peer model, the expected value of subject_id, or limit behavior, leaving an agent to guess at critical calling details.

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 description coverage is only 25%; only cwd has a description. The phrase 'Omit both filters for the whole project' adds useful semantics by implying subject_id and subject_kind are optional filters affecting scope. But it does not explain what subject_id refers to, how subject_kind constrains it, or what limit does, so the compensation is partial.

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 phrase 'What a subject has been through with a peer' gestures at history retrieval but is vague: 'subject' and 'peer' are never defined, and there is no explicit verb like 'list' or 'return.' The 'newest first' ordering helps, but the description does not distinguish this from siblings like confer_digest or feature_history.

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 concrete when-to-use signal: 'Read this before re-litigating something' and clarifies that omitting both filters returns whole-project history. It provides clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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