project_get_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the 'Read-only' line is largely redundant. The genuinely additive content is the disclosure that this call acts as a precondition/guard source for project_step_history, which the annotations cannot express. Return values are covered by the output schema.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the usage rule. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and it still names the key fields and the guard relationship with project_step_history. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and chain it into a step call is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The position/count/dirty values named in the description are outputs rather than inputs, so they add no parameter meaning but also introduce no confusion.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read FL's undo history') and enumerates what it returns (position, count, next undo hint, dirty state), which distinguishes it from project_step_history, the mutating sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('before project_step_history to see what an undo or redo would move to') and how to use the result ('pass its position, count, or dirty flag as that call's expected_before guard'). This is a precise when-to-use plus a concrete integration instruction with the alternative sibling.

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