list_agent_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. The description adds modest value by clarifying that the timeline covers schemas, triggers, and MCP servers and is filterable by resource type. It does not explain ordering, pagination behavior, auth requirements, or the shape of returned entries.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action and object, and each clause earns its place. The filterability note is a short, separate sentence that adds useful information without bloat.

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?

The essential call contract is present: required agent_id, optional resource_type filter, and pagination parameters are all covered by schema and description. However, without an output schema, the description does not clarify what a timeline entry contains, and it does not route the agent away from overlapping history/version tools. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, agent_id, and resource_type are already documented in the schema. The description mainly reinforces the resource_type filter through the parenthetical examples, adding little meaning beyond what the enum already provides.

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 names a specific resource and action: it returns a 'complete timeline' of changes to an agent, listing examples (schemas, triggers, MCP servers). This makes the tool's purpose easy to identify. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like list_versions or list_snapshots, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this tool is for inspecting agent change history and mentions filtering by resource type. It does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as list_versions, list_snapshots, or get_execution_trace, nor does it provide when-not guidance. Usage context is present but only implicit.

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