query_operation_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'query', which implies read-only, but adds no context about ordering, pagination, filter behavior, or whether any side effects occur. The description contributes minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool name.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it omits a few contextual details, its brevity is appropriate for the simple action it describes.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and key behaviors. It does not describe the format of operation history, default ordering, or the effect of the status filter. This leaves the agent without essential information for invoking the tool and interpreting results.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (limit and status) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'query' and resource 'history of operations', making the basic function clear. However, it does not specify the scope of operations (e.g., project, dataset, job), which could be ambiguous given sibling tools like monitor_job_status. Nonetheless, 'history' implies past operations, distinguishing it from active-operation monitors.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monitor_active_operations or monitor_job_status. There is no mention of appropriate context, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. This leaves the agent without sufficient direction for tool selection.

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