QTM4J: Get Automation History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond these by disclosing that the tool returns an empty data array rather than an error when no history exists, that pagination is zero-indexed with a max of 100, and that it works without any project context. These behaviors are meaningful and not inferable from the annotations alone.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into Parameters, Output Description, Use Cases, Examples, and Hints. However, it is somewhat verbose: defaults are repeated ('(default: 0)' twice, '(default: 20)' twice), and display-format instructions appear both in the Output Description and again in Hints #4. Nearly all content is useful, but the redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 tool of this complexity—paginated, read-only, with specific display rendering and a project-context pitfall—the description is complete. It covers the output record fields, the summary sub-structure, edge behavior (empty array), formatting rules, and explicitly warns against unnecessary context calls. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and render the result as intended.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds substantial practical semantics: it explains that startAt is zero-indexed, that maxResults controls page size, and explicitly states 'Increment startAt by maxResults to fetch the next page.' The three JSON examples demonstrate first-page, second-page, and larger-page usage, which is especially helpful for an agent selecting pagination values.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pairing: 'Retrieve a paginated history of past automation result uploads for a QTM4J project.' This clearly identifies the tool as a read-only history/audit operation and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling upload tool qtm4j_upload_automation_result. The title and toolset further reinforce the domain without ambiguity.

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 'Use Cases' section explicitly enumerates when the tool should be used: reviewing history, checking import status, auditing CI/CD uploads, and paginating through records. The hints add an important exclusion: no project context is required and set_project_context must not be called. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast itself with the corresponding upload tool, so it falls just short of full 5-level guidance.

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