nape_honks_with_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-side observability, explains the return structure (ack pairing, age, cross-reference, zombies count), and mentions the freshness_window default. It does not explicitly state no side effects, but 'Read-side observability' implies safety. The description adds sufficient behavioral context.

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 sentences are concise and front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds specific, non-redundant information. No wasted words.

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 main output structure (honks with acks, age, cross-reference, zombies count) and parameter semantics. No output schema exists, so the description compensates well. Minor omission: pagination behavior and full ack concept are assumed, but acceptable for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining freshness_window's default matches PerTurnPriors.FRESHNESS_WINDOW and that limit returns youngest-last. These enrich the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a read-side observability tool for Nape honks, pairing each honk with its ack, age, and cross-reference against prior_for_turn's freshness log. It distinguishes itself from the sibling nape_honks by focusing on ack pairing and lingering detection, and explains the zombies count for an open thread.

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 implies usage for debugging whether a resolved honk persists past its relevance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like nape_honks or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternates are mentioned.

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