get_history_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Get' and implies a read operation, but gives no detail about return format, potential errors, ODB requirements, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure but not a transparent one.

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 no filler words and the key information is front-loaded. While it is concise, it is also under-specified, but for what it contains, it is efficiently structured.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, a single sentence is far from complete. The description does not explain what 'history output data' means, how the parameters interact, or when this tool should be used, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it reliably.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does not explain odb_path, variable, step_name, or timeout at all. Neither the description nor the schema provides meaningful semantics for the parameters beyond their property titles.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('history output data') with a source ('ODB'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like get_xy_data or get_field_output_summary, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_xy_data, inspect_odb, or get_field_output_summary. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals to help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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