pddl_get_action_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states a pure read operation ('Get the history'), which is accurate for a non-destructive tool. However, it does not specify what the history contains (e.g., timestamps, action names, results) or whether it resets with the session. This is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval operation. However, it could be more helpful by hinting at what the output format looks like (e.g., list of action names) or noting that the history persists across tool calls but resets on session reset. Without output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema has no parameters and 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the history is for the entire session, which is not implied by the schema. This is a slight improvement over the baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'history of all actions taken so far in this session', which distinguishes it from siblings like pddl_get_available_actions or pddl_get_current_state. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to retrieve action history in the current session) but does not provide exclusions or alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it could benefit from mentioning that this tool is for post-action review, not for available actions or state.

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