trust_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation ('View') and indicates the nature of the output (trajectory). However, it lacks details such as return format, pagination behavior, or any permissions required. For a simple read tool, this is 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful detail about the trajectory classification. There is no redundancy or wasted content, making it highly efficient.

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 minimal complexity with only two parameters, but it has no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the high-level behavior but does not specify the returned data structure (e.g., timestamps, ordering) or handle edge cases. It is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves room for improvement regarding expected response details.

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% for the two parameters (agent_id and limit). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond referring to 'agent' and does not mention the limit parameter. It relies on the schema, which is complete, so a baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('View') and resource ('agent's trust score history'), and adds the trajectory aspect (improving/stable/declining), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like trust_lookup (current score) or trust_review (detailed review). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one needs historical score data or trend analysis, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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