arm_ci_job_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, the description does not mention potential safety, pagination behavior, default ranges, or what response format to expect. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 that includes the HTTP method, endpoint, and purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded, but it is slightly under-specified, which prevents a 5. Still, 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value or response structure, but it simply says 'build history.' It also lacks usage guidance and context about the range parameters. This makes it incomplete for an agent trying to understand what the tool returns and when to use it.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify the relationship between from/to or the meaning of -1 defaults.

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 that the tool retrieves CI job build history, using a GET endpoint with a path parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like arm_list_ci_jobs by focusing on history rather than job listing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'Retrieves' is specific and the resource is clear.

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 such as arm_latest_results or arm_poll_job_status. It lacks any context about scenarios where history retrieval is appropriate or prerequisites like needing a job name and project name.

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