art.memory.get_style_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. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose the return format, whether it returns a list or object, any pagination, or side effects. For a simple read tool this is minimal, but still incomplete.

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, compact sentence with no superfluous content. It is appropriately short for a tool with no parameters, though it could perhaps be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description explains its basic function. However, it provides no context about when to use it relative to sibling tools or what kind of history is captured (e.g., across versions, changes, etc.). It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent deciding between similar memory tools.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none exist, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('full style evolution history'). It is not a tautology and conveys what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling memory tools like get_summary or explain_style, which might overlap in purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. Given the large set of sibling tools, an agent would have to infer when to call this over others.

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