treeflow_list_training_history

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

With no annotations, the description has to disclose behavior on its own. It states what data is returned (accuracy, duration, error logs) and 'Obtiene' implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, default page size, or any other behavioral constraints, leaving the agent to infer list semantics from the schema.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the main action and resource immediately and includes relevant output details, earning its place without redundancy.

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 3-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no annotations, the description conveys the core purpose and result content well. It lacks pagination behavior and a clear tie to the sibling get_training_status, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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 base rating is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; its detail about metrics, duration, and error logs describes the output, not the input 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 uses a specific verb ('Obtiene') and a specific resource ('historial detallado de entrenamientos del bot'), and adds concrete output details (accuracy metrics, duration, error logs). This distinguishes it from training-related siblings like treeflow_get_training_status and treeflow_trigger_training, though the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'historial detallado' implies this tool is for past training runs rather than current status, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as treeflow_get_training_status. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name and sibling list.

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