get_task_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 and it discloses almost nothing: no ordering, pagination, retention window, or what 'history' contains. The verb 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, since key information is simply absent.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested object parameter, the description should do far more work than one phrase. It omits the meaning of 'body' and gives no hint of what the returned history looks like.

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% and there are two parameters. 'By ID' loosely maps to the required id parameter but adds no format or constraint detail, and the free-form 'body' object parameter — unusual for a history read — is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a verb (Get) and a resource (task history), so the nominal purpose is legible. But it gives no differentiation from close siblings like get_task, get_steps, or get_step_history, and 'history' is undefined (audit log? status changes? retries? output?). Adequate but not distinguishing.

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?

There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus get_task or get_step_history. The only implied context is that you supply a task ID, which an agent could infer from the schema alone.

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