read_history

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

Beyond the read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses ordering (oldest first), cap semantics (most recent retained), default scope (state/effort/release/iteration), and full-mode behavior (changed fields and new values). This is substantial behavioral context for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the first sentence gives the core behavior, the second distinguishes output modes, and the third handles parameter nuance. Every clause contributes.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description orients the agent on return content and shape: history list, oldest first, default vs full fields, and truncation behavior. Combined with the schema's limit/resource details and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining full semantics, the resource/id resolution rule (cards vs other entities like Comment), and the distinction between default simple and full history. Limit's semantics are already covered in the schema, so no gap remains.

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?

Opens with the exact deliverable ('Change history of an entity') and adds ordering, cap-retention behavior, and simple vs full mode, making it unmistakable among the many read_* siblings. The phrase 'full: true returns every change' also makes the retrieval action explicit.

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 use case is clear: any agent needing entity change history, with an explicit choice between lightweight history and full field-level history. It does not name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the purpose is unique enough that an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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