list_history_files

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'list' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, performance, ordering, or limits. With zero parameters, the scope is simple, making the description adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema means the description could hint at return format (e.g., file paths). It does not. For a simple list operation with no parameters, the description is minimally complete but lacks details on what the list contains.

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% (no parameters). With zero parameters, baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'files that have local history entries', and the context 'in VS Code'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_history (for a specific file) and search_history_content (for content search).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for listing files with history, but does not contrast with siblings or state exclusions. Usage is inferred from context, not stated.

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