aras_get_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds a key non-obvious behavior (history tied to config_id, covering entire life) but does not mention read-only nature, output format, pagination, or other operational details. The given information is useful but not comprehensive without annotation support.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The technical detail about config_id follows logically, adding context without bloat. No wasted words.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core concept but leaves gaps: parameter details (especially what 'id' should be, and the meaning of 'limite') and expected response format are not addressed. Given low schema coverage, the description could do more, but it is not wholly inadequate.

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 only 33% (only itemType has an example). The description does not explain the 'id' or 'limite' parameters, nor does it connect the config_id concept to the required 'id' parameter. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds little parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: provides an audit trail (who did what and when) across all revisions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like aras_get_revisions by explicitly noting the history is bound to the config_id, not a single generation, covering the entire object life.

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?

Provides scoping context: explains that the history spans all revisions due to config_id binding, which helps the agent understand when to choose this tool over a revision-specific one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for not using this tool.

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