Prompt version history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that versions are stored locally and that browsing costs 0 API calls, which is real behavioral value, but it never explicitly states this is a read-only, non-mutating operation or what happens on a missing id.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the local-storage/no-API-cost facts, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action modes and locality but omits the id parameter behavior, limit bounds, and any sense of the returned record shape. Adequate but with clear holes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 3 undocumented parameters. It explains the semantics of action list vs get and implies limit ('recent runs'), but never mentions the id parameter's format/role or the limit default and maximum, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (browse) and resource (saved results of generate/optimize/analyze/auto-optimize runs), which clearly separates it from sibling tools that perform those operations. It does not name a sibling directly, but the 'history of prior runs' framing is distinctive enough.

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?

Implies the usage context (retrieve past run results locally rather than calling the API again) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternatives among the sibling tools. The action=list/action=get split is parameter guidance, not usage routing.

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