ig_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden: it doesn't say whether this is read-only, whether failed attempts are included, how far back history goes, whether results are ordered or paginated, or what permissions are needed. 'With status and permalink' is the only behavioral hint and is too thin for an unannotated tool.

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 single fragment is front-loaded with zero padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing wasteful, yet nothing earned beyond the bare noun phrase.

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 two-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less history tool with eleven siblings, the description omits filtering behavior, ordering, retention window, and return shape. An agent could call it, but not confidently or correctly in edge cases.

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 coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'status'. It is ambiguous whether 'status' in the prose refers to a returned field or the filter parameter, leaving the agent to guess at valid values and paging semantics.

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 fragment 'Recent publish attempts with status and permalink' identifies the resource (publish attempt history) and hints at returned fields, but supplies no verb and no scope. It is not distinguishable from siblings like ig_media_list, ig_queue_list, or ig_insights without opening the schema.

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 statement of when to call this versus ig_publish, ig_queue_list, or ig_insights, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a post-hoc audit view rather than a live queue listing.

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