get_transition_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. The inclusion of 'timeline overview and basic statistics' adds some context, but key operational details are missing for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieves transition history') and adds clarifying details ('with timeline overview and basic statistics for task context'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly 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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and output details. For a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally include more about return values or error handling to be fully complete.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'taskId' documented as 'Task ID for transition history.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('transition history'), specifying it includes 'timeline overview and basic statistics for task context.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_role_transitions' or 'get_step_progress' by focusing on historical data with statistical insights. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides minimal guidance, only implying usage for 'task context' without specifying when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_role_transitions' or 'get_step_progress.' No explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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