arm_rollback_history

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

With no annotations, the description itself discloses a read-only behavior via the GET method and 'Fetches' verb. However, it lacks details on response format, pagination, or permissions, leaving the full burden partially unmet.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the endpoint and function. No wasted words.

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 annotation, the description does not explain what the rollback history contains, the shape of the response, or how it differs from rollback details. This is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and no additional structured context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing the URL template with {ciJobName} and {buildNumber?}, indicating these are path parameters, which the schema does not convey.

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 fetches rollback history for a CI job build, with a specific HTTP GET endpoint. It distinguishes itself as a history-focused tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling arm_rollback_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arm_rollback_details or arm_ci_job_history. The description simply states the function without usage context or exclusions.

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