gcfr_process_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it shows history (implying read-only) and includes defaults for date parameters. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only explicitly, does not describe the response format (though output schema exists), and does not mention any potential side effects or pagination. This is a moderate disclosure given the lack of annotations.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a use case and parameter defaults. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema (so return format is covered elsewhere) and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and defaults. However, it omits the process_name parameter entirely, which is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool. The description also does not mention any prerequisites or limitations, though the simple nature of the query reduces the need. Overall, it's adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains date_from and date_to defaults, indicating they define the range, but it does not mention process_name at all. The description fails to describe what process_name does or its expected format. Since one of three parameters is completely undocumented and the others are only partially explained, this is insufficient.

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 tool shows process execution history with timing and outcomes for a date range. It uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('process execution history'), and mentions the key outputs (timing, outcomes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like gcfr_execution_log or gcfr_process_status_summary, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 use case: 'Use this to understand how long processes took and whether they succeeded.' This implies when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. For a tool with many related siblings, explicit guidance on selection would improve it, so it's adequate but not strong.

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