get_task_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting order ('Sorted by most recent first'), statuses included, and detailed response fields. It also mentions the API endpoint. However, it does not mention potential limits, pagination, or error behavior, which would be useful for full transparency, but the disclosure is still strong.

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 long but well-structured with clear headings, bullets, and sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides examples and use cases. Some redundancy exists between 'What you'll get' and 'Response includes', but overall it is scannable and every section contributes value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by thoroughly listing every response field with descriptions. It also provides a workflow example, API endpoint, and use cases. For a tool with only two simple parameters, this is comprehensively sufficient.

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% and each parameter already has an informative description including examples and casing requirements. The tool description repeats these examples and adds query examples, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the execution history for a specific task chain or object in SAP Datasphere.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_task_status (status) and get_task_log (log details) by focusing on historical runs. The 'Use this tool when' list further reinforces its 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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when' section lists six concrete use cases. The workflow example demonstrates how to chain get_task_history with get_task_log, indicating when to use the alternative. Example queries provide practical context for invocation.

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