get_prompt_history_api_v1_prompts_id

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, order of history, error handling, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about side effects or constraints.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity. It is not inappropriately long, but could be expanded to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 a simple tool with two parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description should at least explain what the version history contains (e.g., list of timestamps, versions) and the role of pagination. The current description is inadequate for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not elaborate on 'prompt_id' (e.g., format, where to find it) or 'page' (e.g., page size, indexing). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the basic schema, which is insufficient for proper invocation.

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 that the tool retrieves version history for a prompt, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_prompt_history_entry or get_prompt_diff, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus other prompt-related tools, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent receives no help in selecting among siblings like get_prompt_by_id or set_prompt_version.

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