state_machine_sm_history

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

Describes the output structure but lacks details on behavior edge cases (e.g., if n is null, returns all?; what if machine doesn't exist?). No annotations to supplement, so description carries burden.

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 a single, short sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. However, it could be structured with more detail in the same space.

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?

Missing critical context: no mention of what happens for invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent machine, n negative), no prerequisites, and no explanation of output schema beyond a brief format. Incomplete for safe autonomous use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It implies name is the state machine and n is the number of transitions, but doesn't map explicitly or explain defaults (n=null meaning all?). Only partial compensation.

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 returns the last n transitions of a state machine and specifies the output format as [{seq, from, to, timestamp}]. It distinguishes from siblings like sm_add_transition (adds) and sm_state (current state) but doesn't explicitly compare them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sm_state or sm_status. Missing prerequisites (e.g., machine must exist) or conditions where it should not be used.

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