proxypi_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the reference to 'history' implies non-destructive behavior. It adds useful context about 'auto-healed' requests, though it doesn't enumerate side effects—unnecessary for a read-only tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. 'Show the history of auto-healed API requests' directly states the purpose, and the optional filter clause is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only history tool with two well-documented schema parameters, the description gives sufficient context to understand purpose and invocation. It does not specify return format, but no output schema exists, and the user can infer typical history output. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but it is fully documented in the schema, so the agent can still use it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions optional host filtering, which is redundant with the schema's host description, and it does not add meaning to the limit parameter. The schema itself provides adequate parameter semantics.

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 shows the history of auto-healed API requests with a specific verb ('Show') and resource. The sibling names (proxypi_request, replay, clear) imply different operations, and 'history' distinguishes this from making/replaying/clearing requests.

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 intended use is implied: viewing past auto-healed requests, with optional host filtering. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The description does not say when this should be used instead of replay or clear.

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