code-fundi-history-item

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the result includes 'the complete response and knowledge sources,' which goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clearer expectation of the returned data. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the key included fields. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase 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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the main return contents, and the schema covers the parameter. While it does not elaborate on potential errors or exact return structure, the low complexity and the readOnlyHint annotation keep this from being a significant gap.

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?

The sole parameter history_id is fully described in the schema as 'History entry UUID,' and the description repeats 'by its ID' without adding further semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not add extra guidance such as where to find the ID.

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 function: 'Get the full details of a single history entry by its ID' with specific content ('complete response and knowledge sources'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling code-fundi-list-history, which lists entries, by focusing on a single item's detail retrieval.

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 implies usage when you need full details of a specific history entry after obtaining its ID, which is a natural companion to the list-history sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention that you should first list history entries to obtain the ID.

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