system.jobs.history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'history of executions' without explaining whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how pagination works via the limit parameter. The lack of any behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is too terse and omits essential details. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Though an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description fails to cover key aspects like ordering, scope (e.g., all history or recent only), or how limit affects the results. For a simple 2-parameter tool with siblings, more context is expected to enable 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage? Actually 0% description coverage on properties. The description does not explain the purpose of job_name (required) or limit (default 20). It adds zero semantic value beyond the schema, failing to specify that limit controls the number of history entries or that job_name identifies the job. This is a critical gap.

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 'Historico de execucoes de um job' clearly states the tool retrieves execution history for a specific job. It distinguishes itself from siblings like system.jobs.list (list jobs) and system.jobs.run (run a job) by focusing on historical records.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or cases where other tools would be more appropriate. Sibling names hint at distinct use cases, but the description itself offers no such information.

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