task_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: results are capped at 100 and are 'recent', implying a truncation and ordering behavior the agent must account for. It stops short of stating ordering explicitly or what happens for an unknown task_id.

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?

One short sentence with the scope limit front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only ordering/truncation nuance and task-existence behavior left implicit.

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% and the single task_id parameter has no description in the schema. The phrase 'for a task' partially compensates by implying task_id scopes the query, but it adds no type, format, or validity constraints beyond what the schema declares.

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 ('Read') and resource ('audit events for a task') with a concrete scope ('up to 100 recent'). It is distinguishable from get_task, which returns task details rather than audit history, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 purpose implies the use case (inspecting a task's audit trail), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_task or list_tasks instead. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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