Get Workflow Instance History (Company)

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the return structure: ordered list, event types with JSON examples (WorkflowStarted, WorkflowTerminated), and pagination support with page/per_page parameters and metadata. It also states the endpoint URL. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) alone do not cover. There's no contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately concise but contains extraneous or redundant information. The full endpoint path ('Endpoint: GET /rest/v2.0/...') and the Procore API reference add noise. The event type examples, while useful, are incomplete (cut off) and could be summarized. A more focused description would be more effective.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the response shape. It starts listing event types but only shows two (WorkflowStarted and WorkflowTerminated) and then cuts off after 'detai...'. It mentions 'pagination metadata' but does not specify its structure. The incomplete examples and lack of full response schema leave significant gaps for an agent to understand the complete output.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description repeats the required parameters (company_id, id) and mentions pagination parameters, but adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema: 'the response includes pagination metadata' is the only extra insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already explains parameters well.

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 clear statement: 'Returns an ordered list of history events for a given company workflow instance.' This specifies the verb (returns), resource (history events), and scope (company workflow instance). The inclusion of event type examples further clarifies the output. However, a later sentence says 'fetch the full details of a specific Workflows by its identifier,' which introduces ambiguity and slightly detracts from clarity. The company vs project differentiation from siblings is clear.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternative approaches. There is a sibling tool for project-level history (get_workflow_instance_history_project), but no comparison or distinction is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use this tool. Agents are left to infer usage from the title and sibling names.

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