github_secret_scanning_get_scan_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as what data is returned, pagination, rate limits, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool that retrieves history data.

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 of 8 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the nature of the scan history (e.g., what fields are returned, time range), which would help an agent use the tool correctly. More context would be beneficial but is not critical for basic use.

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 schema has 100% description coverage (both 'owner' and 'repo' have descriptions), but those descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage, even though the schema descriptions are minimal.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'secret scanning scan history for a repository', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling secret scanning tools like 'get_alert' (single alert) and 'list_alerts_for_repo' (list alerts). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_alerts_for_repo' or 'get_alert'. No exclusions or context are given.

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