get_worker_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Get' and the stats endpoint imply a read-only operation, and the purpose of checking busy/idle adds interpretive context. However, it does not disclose details like response format, whether any filtering occurs, or any operational caveats. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states exactly what the tool returns, the second gives the practical use case. The key information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the nature of the result ('history of running worker counts by type') and the use case. However, it does not describe the response structure, the default behavior when timeframe is omitted, or the granularity of the history, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 the only parameter, timeframe. The description adds only a slight contextual link between 'over a period' and the timeframe parameter, not meaningfully more than the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('history of running worker counts by type'), and even includes the exact endpoint. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_worker_verdict_history and get_resource_history by focusing on worker-count activity and the busy/idle use case.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use it to check whether workers were actually busy over a period, or idle waiting for work.' It clearly states when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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