bb_get_file_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output content ('shows which commits modified the file and when') but does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, permissions, or error behavior. This adds minimal value beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 straightforward read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value. The schema adequately documents parameters, including pagination options. Missing explicit mention of pagination or result ordering is a minor gap, but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-level details, but it doesn't need to since the schema already explains each field clearly.

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 the specific action: 'Get the commit history for a specific file' and explains what it shows ('which commits modified the file and when'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_commits and bb_get_file_content by specifying the resource (file history) and scope (a specific file).

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a user needs commit history for a specific file. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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