List Database Query 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 safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: default/max limit, masking of SQL literals, withholding of statements with comments or sensitive markers, and promise to return execution summaries rather than raw errors or rows. This goes beyond what annotations provide, enhancing the agent's understanding of data shape and privacy.

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 sentences, each adding essential detail: the purpose, the key limits and masking behavior, and the nature of returned data. No fluff; the most critical info (workspace scoping, limits) is front-loaded, and the privacy constraints follow logically.

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 list operation with a clear output schema (execution summaries) and minimal parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the scope, the limits, what is excluded, and what is returned. There is no ambiguity about the function's behavior or output format.

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%, but there are only two parameters. The description mentions 'default 50, maximum 200' which directly clarifies the 'limit' parameter, and implies workspace scoping for the workspaceId. However, it does not explicitly define field types or requirements, but given the simplicity, the baseline 3 is justified.

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 workspace-scoped query history, distinguishing it from similar tools by naming workspace scoping, default/max limits, and filtering behavior. Identifies the resource (database query history) with a specific verb (list).

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 clearly states when to use this tool (to list query history) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like unfour.api.list_history or unfour.ssh.list_history. However, the workspace scoping and explicit masking behavior imply usage context.

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