node_history

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation (provides a timeline and records) with no mention of side effects or destructive actions. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only,' the language strongly implies a non-mutating query, which is transparent enough for a user to understand what to expect.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that succinctly summarize the tool's purpose and provide usage examples. It is well-structured, front-loading the core functionality and then adding practical context without any unnecessary 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool returns (timeline with risk, blast-radius, execution-evidence records, including specific fields) and when to use it. It does not leave essential gaps about the tool's function or expected behavior.

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 only parameter, nodeId, is described both in the schema and in the tool description. The schema gives the exact format ('relative/path.ts::Symbol' or 'relative/path.ts::Class::method'), and the description clarifies that a node is a function or method. This fully explains the parameter's meaning and expected values.

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 that the tool provides a timeline for a single node, including risk and blast-radius values across previous runs and execution-evidence records. It also gives concrete use cases ('forensics' and checking for trustworthy passing evidence), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that analyze broader aspects.

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 explicitly says 'Use for forensics...' and 'or to check whether a high-risk node has accumulated trustworthy passing evidence,' providing direct guidance on when to employ this tool. It implies the context (investigating past behavior of a specific node) and differentiates from other tools that might handle multiple nodes or perform different analyses.

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