get_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does communicate that this is a read-style paginated listing of history events. It adds useful context about the content (grabbed, imported, failed, deleted, renamed, indexer), but it does not disclose any side effects, permission needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the word 'page through.'

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the operation and scope, then enumerates the key covered event types. It is concise without sacrificing necessary 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?

Given no output schema and 10 parameters, the description gives a solid high-level overview but leaves gaps: it does not describe the response shape, pagination defaults, or how this history differs from the 'since' and 'series' variants. The schema fills parameter details, yet the description alone is not fully complete for an agent choosing among history-related tools.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; its mention of event types and indexer aligns with what the schema already enumerates, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (grab and import history) and the operation (page through), and enumerates the event categories covered. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_history_since or get_series_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?

The description gives a clear sense of what the tool returns but offers no guidance on when to use it versus the closely related get_history_since or get_series_history tools. No exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria are provided.

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