haops_get_role_template_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that role templates are system-wide (no scope/projectSlug), what each history entry contains, and the effect of diff=true. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a history tool this is acceptable.

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 well-structured paragraphs. First explains what the tool does, second provides use cases. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description lists the fields included in each entry. For a read-only query tool, this is sufficient. It might benefit from mentioning any pagination or limits, but not critical.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds meaningful context: diff controls unified diffs between consecutive versions, raw controls raw JSON vs formatted table. Name is just 'kebab-case role template name', which is adequate.

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 it returns the full version history of a named role template, with specific fields like version, timestamp, author, lifecycle state, and baseBody markdown. It distinguishes itself from siblings like haops_read_role_template and haops_list_role_templates by focusing on 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 provides explicit use cases: audit template content, recover from bad publish, inspect changes before bumping with cascade. It also explains when to use diff. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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