get_prompt_history_entry_api_v1_prompts_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get a specific version from history'. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if history_id not found), or any 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, which is efficient but lacks structured detail. It could be more informative without increasing length significantly.

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?

Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain how the two parameters relate (history_id is an entry within prompt_id's history) or what the return value represents. Not complete for a tool with 2 required parameters.

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 compensate, but it does not mention the meaning or relationship of prompt_id and history_id beyond their names. The names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds no value.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'a specific version from history', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_prompt_history' (getting all history) and 'delete_prompt_history_entry'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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