get_mood_history

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

The description discloses that the tool returns only historical data for finished tasks, which is a key behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it also implies a read-only operation without side effects.

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 a single sentence, front-loading the key information without any unnecessary 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. It could mention ordering or limits, but the output schema likely handles return structure.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description has no need to add parameter information. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 returns the user's historical mood-per-task log for finished tasks, specifying the verb 'return', the resource 'mood-per-task log', and the scope 'finished tasks', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_item_history.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for finished tasks, but does not explicitly state that it is not for ongoing tasks or provide alternative tool suggestions.

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