Get ai tracking history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — returned data may contain 'partial states' and 'cost uncertainty', and provenance is preserved — but these traits are asserted without explanation, so the agent knows to expect them yet not what they mean operationally.

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; the scoping qualifier leads. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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 cursor-paginated read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it signals provenance and uncertainty but omits what entity the history covers and how it relates to the run/sample/trend siblings. The schema handles parameters, but the description leaves too much of the tool's role implicit.

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 100%, with limit, cursor, and project_id all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., cursor semantics or default page size) beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Read' and resource 'AI tracking evidence' are stated, and 'project-scoped' gives scope. However, 'history' vs. the sibling 'export_ai_tracking_evidence', 'get_ai_tracking_run', and 'get_ai_tracking_trends' is never disambiguated, and it is unclear whether this returns runs, samples, or aggregated evidence. An agent cannot confidently tell it apart from adjacent siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many AI-tracking siblings, and no stated prerequisites beyond what the schema implies. The agent is left to infer the right tool purely from the name.

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