computeruse_get_history_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'This is read-only' and mentions 'all recorded step summaries', providing useful trait information ape. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing session IDs, error handling, or output format details.

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 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the read-only note immediately after. There is no fluff, and every phrase 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what is retrieved ('all recorded step summaries'), the storage source (SQLite history), and the safety profile (read-only). It lacks explicit error behavior or return structure, but those gaps are minor given the low complexity.

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 description does not explain that session_id identifies the target tracked run, how to discover valid IDs, or any format expectations. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one tracked run with all recorded step summaries from SQLite history'). It clearly conveys the tool's scope and distinguishes it from list_history by focusing on a single run with step summaries.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a specific run's step summaries, which contrasts with sibling list_history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than direct.

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