fl_get_project_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by specifying what is read (bounds, position, hint, dirty state), giving the agent a concrete expectation of the tool's behavior without contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and all key data fields with no filler. 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?

For a parameterless read-only getter with an output schema and rich annotations, this description supplies all necessary context: what is being read and that it is non-destructive. No preconditions or side effects need explanation.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. This aligns with the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('project history') and enumerates the exact data returned: undo/redo bounds, current history position, hint, and dirty state. This sharply distinguishes it from mutation siblings like fl_undo and fl_redo.

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 read-only phrasing establishes that this is for inspecting history state rather than changing it, and the sibling context makes fl_undo/fl_redo the obvious mutating alternatives. It does not explicitly state 'use before undo/redo' or name an alternative, but the usage context is clearly implied.

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