feature_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by noting the record is append-only and serves as the audit trail replacing git history, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe ordering, pagination, or side-effect behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, with the first precisely listing the record's key fields and the second giving useful context about its role relative to git history. Every word 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?

The description covers the essential output content and the tool's audit-trail concept, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it leaves ambiguity around limit semantics, explicit read-only behavior, and selection among sibling history-like tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 schema already documents id and cwd well, but limit is described only by its schema constraint; the description adds nothing about parameter meaning. At 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented limit parameter, and it does not.

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 names the append-only record and enumerates its content: what changed, when, by whom, and against which git commit. This makes it clear that the tool exposes the audit trail, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use feature_history versus alternatives such as feature_list or the similarly named confer_history. The description only provides background context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name.

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