list_task_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent commands, timestamps, statuses, and outputs. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations like pagination, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose, return fields, and usage advice. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool, though it could mention the output schema or limit format.

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 0% (no parameter documentation in description). The description implicitly hints at 'agent_id' via 'specific agent' and 'limit' via 'recent', but does not explicitly describe the parameters or their formats, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Show' and resource 'execution history for a specific agent', matching the tool name 'list_task_history'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_agents' (which lists agents) and 'list_processes' (which lists processes).

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 explicitly advises using the tool 'to avoid repeating commands if results are recent and valid', providing clear usage context. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the guidance is helpful for optimal usage.

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