get_file_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. 'Complete history' is vague; it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what exactly is returned (metadata, content, diffs), or if there are any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, but it misses an opportunity to add value (e.g., specifying it's read-only or the scope of 'complete'). Still concise and front-loaded.

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 history retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'history' entails (e.g., versions, changes), whether it requires permissions, or what the output format looks like. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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%, and the schema already describes filePath adequately (including absolute path example). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating the tool's purpose.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'complete history' are specific and clearly state the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like get_history_entry (specific entry) and get_history_stats (statistics), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 using this tool when you want the full history of a file, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., get_history_entry for a single version) or mention any prerequisites or restrictions.

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