get_calibration_history

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get calibration history', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, pagination behavior, data freshness, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

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, concise sentence. However, conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness—here it is under-specified. The phrase is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 has two parameters and an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the history contains (e.g., calibration runs, results). The current text is too vague to judge completeness. An output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to provide context.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the two parameters ('model_id' and 'limit'). It does not explain that 'model_id' likely filters history by model, or that 'limit' controls the number of records returned. The baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description fails to compensate.

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 'Get calibration history' is a minimal phrase that aligns with the tool name. It specifies the resource ('calibration history') but lacks detail on what 'calibration' refers to in context. Compared to sibling tools like 'run_calibration_test' or 'bloom_get_history', it does not differentiate its scope or purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bloom_get_history' or 'run_calibration_test'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for appropriate use.

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