get_prompt_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it shows previous versions but does not disclose whether it is read-only, how versions are ordered, any access constraints, or the impact of usage. Minimal 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?

The description is very short, front-loading the purpose. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as separating the title from the description.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It conveys the basic functionality but lacks details on output format, pagination, or typical use cases. Adequate for a simple history tool but not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds no parameter info, but this is acceptable as schema coverage is 100% (trivially). No loss of meaning.

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 shows previous versions of a prompt, specifying the verb 'shows' and resource 'prompt history'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_prompt' or 'rollback_prompt', leaving ambiguity about the specific scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for viewing history, but lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools handle related tasks like retrieving the current prompt or rolling back.

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