baton_history

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

The word 'Read' signals a read-only operation, which is useful since no annotations are provided. 'Recent' hints at temporal ordering, but the description does not disclose pagination, default limits, required project context, or what happens with omitted parameters.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a read operation, though additional parameter detail would make it more useful without hurting structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description carries too much burden and falls short. It leaves the agent unsure what 'limit' controls, how 'project' is specified, what the returned ledger looks like, and how this tool differs from baton_log or baton_status.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only weakly maps to the 'project' parameter via 'for this project'. The 'limit' parameter is completely unexplained, including whether it caps the number of entries or controls pagination. The description does not compensate for the missing schema detail.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('recent handoff/progress ledger'), so an agent can tell the basic purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like baton_log or baton_status, but the 'history' focus is reasonably clear.

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 the tool is for reviewing recent history, but it never states when to use this over baton_log or baton_status, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routing. The usage context is present but only by implication.

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