List API Request History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: it mentions that sensitive URL parameters are masked, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It also notes the scope ('active workspace') and the command bus mechanism, which adds transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second adds a security-relevant detail and a usage hint. No fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, scope, security masking, and a use case. It could mention pagination or the output format, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 both parameters (limit and workspaceId) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions 'active workspace' which aligns with workspaceId, and 'recent' which implies a default limit. But it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists recent API request/response history for the active workspace, with a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('API request/response history'). It distinguishes from siblings like unfour.api.get_history (which likely retrieves a single history entry) and unfour.ssh.list_history (which is for SSH, not API).

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for diagnosing when a request started failing.' It implies when to use (when debugging API request failures) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. However, the sibling context and the tool's name make it clear this is for API history, not SSH history.

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