claimhit_get_historyGet the user's recent patent scans. Returns patent numbers, dates, and top results from past searches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recent searches to return (default 5, max 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds what the return includes (patent numbers, dates, top results) but no additional behavioral context beyond that.
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?
Two short sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns.
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?
The single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (default 5, max 20). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 'Get the user's recent patent scans' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'claimhit_search' which performs new searches.
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 is given, but the name and description imply it is for retrieving history. Alternatives are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search, re-run search, generate chart, get credits, get history, get specific result. No overlap in functionality.
All tools share the 'claimhit_' prefix and use imperative verbs. Most follow verb_noun pattern, though 'claimhit_search' lacks a noun, creating minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a patent infringement analysis service, covering search, re-run, detailed charting, result retrieval, history, and credits.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: searching, viewing results, generating charts, re-running searches, and checking credits/history. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.