debug_session_history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral detail: it performs one paginated request, does not retry, does not hydrate live stores, does not fall back, and treats Runtime as authoritative. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 three sentences, compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The opening bracket context is slightly generic but not wasteful, and every sentence serves a distinct role.

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 dual-action tool with many parameters, the description adequately covers both actions (list sessions and read trace events) and sets expectations about pagination and authoritative source. Without an output schema, it could mention return shape, but the schema and annotations compensate sufficiently.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only frames the two actions (list and get). This meets baseline but provides no extra value for individual parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool lists durable historical Runtime sessions or reads a bounded page of persisted trace events, which maps directly to the two schema actions (list and get). It also contrasts with live session tools, making its resource and scope unambiguous.

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?

It specifies to use this tool when live debug buffers are unavailable or historical analysis is requested, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list when not to use it, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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