Search History

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. Given it is a GET request, it is likely safe, but the description leaves this implicit rather than stated.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so no return format is described. The description does not mention any limitations, pagination, or relationship to other history-related tools, but for a simple list it may be sufficient. Still, more context about the returned history entries would improve completeness.

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 parameter 'search_type' has a vague description: 'Filter: query, tag, filter.' This is confusing and does not clarify the allowed values or how the filter works. It adds some meaning but not enough for a user to know how to use it effectively.

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 lists CivitAI search history, with a specific resource and action. It is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other tools that might perform different operations.

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 for retrieving history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It could benefit from noting that it is read-only and separate from other CivitAI operations like search or download.

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