counter_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Get' to imply a read-only operation and specifies the content of the history, but does not disclose safety guarantees, ordering, or any side effects. The description adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Get') and efficiently conveys the scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 with complete input schema, and the description covers purpose and content. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the exact shape or ordering of returned history entries, leaving a minor gap in how an agent interprets the response.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (counter_id and limit), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('operation history for a specific counter'), and lists the operations covered (increments, decrements, resets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like counter_get (current state) and counter_reset (mutation).

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 when to use the tool (when operation history is needed) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use counter_get for current value'.

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