get_dataset_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read ('Zeigt') and names the returned contents (snapshots, saves, current state), but never states that the operation is side-effect free, nor mentions permissions, cost, or ordering of the history. That is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The trailing 'Returns:' block restates information the output schema already carries, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly avoids needing to since there are no inputs. For a simple parameterless read tool the description is essentially complete, though it could say a bit more about when the history is useful.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related, which is correct since there is nothing to document.

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 specific verb and resource: it shows the history of all snapshots and saves. The scope ('aller Snapshots und Speicherungen') is concrete enough to distinguish it from the many dataset/building tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from snapshot siblings like take_snapshot or rollback_to_snapshot.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as take_snapshot or rollback_to_snapshot, which are the natural adjacent tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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