get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the global scope, the event categories included, the default newest-first ordering, and the available filtering mechanics. It does not explicitly state read-only status or response shape, but the history/paging framing strongly implies a safe read operation.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core behavior ('Page through the global history') and then add scope, ordering, and filter purpose with no redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main pagination behavior, default sort, event types, and filter-driven use case. It is slightly incomplete around return shape and sort_key/sort_direction specifics, but those are either inferable or already covered by the input schema.

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 coverage is 86%, so the structured schema already covers most parameters. The description adds meaning by connecting event_type, movie_ids, and download_id to the tracing use case and by noting default ordering behavior. It adds less value for sort_direction and pagination parameters, but those are adequately documented in the schema.

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-resource pair ('Page through the global history') and enumerates the covered event types (grabs, imports, failures, deletions, renames). It also states default ordering and filter dimensions, clearly distinguishing it as the global history tool from per-movie siblings like get_movie_history.

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 explicitly identifies a concrete use case ('trace what happened to a specific download') and describes filter dimensions (event type, movie ids, download id). It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it lacks full when-not-to-use routing.

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