get_step_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering, pagination, or retention of the 'history'. The word 'history' weakly implies a read of past records, but no concrete behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

It is a single short phrase with zero redundancy and the identifier requirement is front-loaded. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being an appropriately sized description for a 2-parameter tool.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a nested 'body' object, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has essentially no information beyond the name to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description only covers the required 'id' ('by ID') and is silent on the 'body' object parameter, which is a nested object needing explanation. With low coverage the description fails to compensate.

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 'Get step history by ID' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name get_step_history. It adds only the phrase 'by ID', which is a weak hint at the required parameter, and it does nothing to distinguish the tool from near-identical siblings such as get_step, get_steps, or get_task_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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related siblings. An agent cannot tell from the text whether step history differs from get_step or get_task_history, nor under what circumstances (audit, retries, debugging) it should be preferred.

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