art.production.attempts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, limits, or what data is included (e.g., timestamps, outcomes). For a history tool, this is a significant gap.

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 maximally concise, a single short sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is well front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the purpose but lacks any details on output format, ordering, or potential errors. Given its simplicity, it's minimally viable but could easily be improved with a sentence on what data is returned.

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 coverage is 100%, with the job_id parameter described as 'Production job ID' in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond that, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('attempt history for a production job'), which is distinct enough from sibling tools that focus on status, inspection, or planning. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other history-related tools like art.memory.get_style_history or art.qa.history, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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 such as art.production.status or art.production.inspect. The description only states what it does, not the scenarios where it is the preferred choice.

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