nt_get_history

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions that 'last_seconds' selects a recent time window and that some parameters mirror nt_subscribe, but it omits details about read-only nature, required recordings, connection prerequisites, return format, or side effects. The agent is largely left in the dark.

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 brief and well-structured, with the core purpose first and parameter hints in a second sentence. No fluff or redundancy. It earns its short length, though it could include more detail without becoming bloated.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and only a few words of guidance, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify a recording (recording_id), what output_dir does, or how start/end/limit relate to the timestamp range. The single line of purpose is insufficient for a tool this complex.

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%. The description only explains 'last_seconds' and partially references 'sample_interval' and 'format' via the nt_subscribe comparison. The other six parameters (end, limit, start, topic, output_dir, recording_id) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Return event history'), the target ('for one topic'), and the scope ('from a recording'), which distinguishes it from live tools like nt_get or nt_subscribe. The verb and resource are specific and 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 provides some usage context by referencing 'from a recording' and notes that 'sample_interval' and 'format="summary"' behave like 'nt_subscribe', giving the agent a behavioral pointer. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other history-related siblings (e.g., nt_get_recording_info) or when not to use it, so guidance is limited.

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