kiwi_get_execution_history

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

The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation and there is no hint of destructive side effects. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose ordering, pagination, permission requirements, or what kinds of changes are included in the history.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the target and the operation. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no detail about return shape, ordering, or error behavior, an agent still has to infer important details on first use.

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 schema has one integer execution_id with no property description, so the description must carry the semantic burden. 'For a test execution' does clarify that execution_id identifies the execution whose history is requested, but the description does not explain where to obtain the ID or any constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: it returns the change history for a test execution. This distinguishes it from siblings like kiwi_get_test_executions, which returns execution data, and kiwi_get_test_case_history, which targets test cases rather than executions.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many related lookup tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or the intended scenario beyond the core description.

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