get_vulnerability_history

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool returns a paginated chronological list, details event types, mentions errors (RuntimeError, ValueError), and describes the return structure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but as a read-only history tool, these are less critical. The disclosure is adequate for safe invocation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Common Event Types, Common Use Cases, Raises). It is somewhat verbose but each section adds value. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first line. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is effective and easy to parse.

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?

Although no output schema was provided in the input (context says it exists), the description includes a detailed 'Returns' section outlining the structure, event types, and pagination metadata. It also covers common use cases and error conditions. This completeness compensates for missing schema and ensures the agent can understand the tool's output.

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 defines three parameters with minimal constraints. The description adds critical context: 'vulnerability_id' is the unique identifier, 'first' has a range of 1-100 (default 10), and 'after' is a pagination cursor from previous response. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden and provides complete semantic information.

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's function: 'Get the complete audit history and timeline for a vulnerability.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'vulnerability history' are specific. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like get_vulnerability (current state) and get_alert_history (different resource).

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 includes a 'Common Use Cases' section listing compliance auditing, investigation, etc., which implies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of resource-specific history is clear. No direct comparison with siblings is provided, but the use cases guide appropriate usage.

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