Policy History Detail

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable context by clarifying that 'Each run's device_outcomes are device counts per outcome, not run statuses,' which prevents misinterpretation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral detail. No superfluous content.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a key nuance. It omits details like return format or parameter descriptions, but is largely complete for a simple read operation.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The input schema defines policy_uuid, recent_runs_limit, and output_format, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with three parameters, this is insufficient.

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's purpose: 'Get policy history details by UUID, including run history and status.' It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like policy_detail or policy_run_detail_v2.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as policy_detail or policy_runs_by_policy. The description implies usage when a policy UUID is known, but fails to provide context for when not to use it.

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