get_agent_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 only states that it gets the 'full reasoning history', but lacks disclosure about rate limits, access permissions, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The claim of 'all decisions' implies completeness but no confirmation.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no extraneous content. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the return value looks like, whether there is pagination, or any special behavior. The optional nature of the parameter is not addressed.

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 adds no information about the single parameter 'agent_id'. It does not specify whether it is required (listed as 0 required), expected format, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'full reasoning history for an agent'. It specifies that it includes 'all decisions they have ever logged to AgentLedger', which defines scope. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_reasoning' or 'audit_agent', which likely have similar purposes.

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 vs alternatives such as 'log_reasoning', 'get_reasoning', 'verify_reasoning', or 'audit_agent'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contextual use cases.

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