get_history_for_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'edit history' includes (e.g., timestamps, users, changes). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency about how it behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'edit history' returns (e.g., list of changes, timestamps, users), pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not described), or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and rich sibling context, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'case_id' identifies the test case. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('edit history for a test case'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_case' or 'get_results_for_case', but the focus on 'edit history' provides reasonable distinction. A 5 would require explicit sibling comparison.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving case-related data (e.g., 'get_case', 'get_results_for_case', 'get_attachments_for_case'), the description offers no context about when edit history is needed versus other case information. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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