get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a specific behavioral nuance: setting 'mit_startschwall=False' filters out retained old stock that arrives after connection with misleading timestamps. This adds valuable context beyond the name, but it does not mention read-only nature, error conditions, or other side effects.

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 concise, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence. The second sentence explains a non-obvious parameter behavior in detail, which is necessary. It is not overlong and respects the front-loading principle.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, output schema present, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and one important parameter behavior. However, it lacks usage guidelines and a fuller behavioral profile. The output schema likely documents return values, so that gap is acceptable. Still, the description feels incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'mit_startschwall' parameter and its effect, but the other three parameters (topic, limit, seit_stunden) are only implied by their names. The description adds meaning to one key param but leaves the rest to inference.

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 identifies the tool as 'Verlauf eines Topics mit Zeitstempeln' (history of a topic with timestamps), which clearly specifies the resource (topic) and the function (retrieving history with timestamps). It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_last or get_tree, but the noun phrase is specific enough.

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 such as get_last or get_tree. It only calls it the 'core function' of the server, which implies central usage but lacks explicit criteria or exclusions.

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