effort_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'full event history' – it does not state that this is a read-only operation, imply any implications for large histories, or mention pagination or data format. The agent cannot predict performance or side effects from this text.

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?

While extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. The single fragment 'One effort's full event history' repeats what the tool name already implies and adds no new information. It fails to earn its placement by contributing actionable detail.

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?

The existence of an output schema is not sufficient – the description should explain what the history includes (e.g., timestamps, states, actors) and any caveats. Given the tool's apparent complexity (multiple sibling operation types), a one-line description is inadequate for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage (0%), so the description must explain the 'effort' parameter. It only says 'effort' with no additional typing like a contract ID, name, or unique key. The agent cannot tell what format or how to obtain a valid value from this description alone.

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 phrase 'full event history' clearly indicates a retrieval operation scoped to one effort. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'summary' or 'current' by focusing on the complete event log. However, it does not explicitly name the resource as the subject of a verb (e.g., 'fetches'), so it stops short of a precise action-resource statement.

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 guidance is given for when to call this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements 'summary' or 'effort_table', nor does it advise against calling it when only a current snapshot is needed. The description leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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