Get Workflow Instance History (Project)

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

Annotations already signal read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and idempotency. The description adds event type definitions and ordering, but includes contradictory statements about returning workflows vs. history events. It does not disclose authorization needs or other behavioral traits beyond 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 includes a lengthy JSON example for event types and repeats pagination info. It could be streamlined, but the core information is present.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides partial event structure but cuts off the second example. It also misstates return type as 'array of Workflows' instead of history events. Lacks documentation on pagination metadata format.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description lists required parameters and pagination but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'Returns an ordered list of history events for a given project workflow instance.' However, it later conflates with 'fetch the full details of a specific Workflows' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Workflows,' which are contradictory. The name and title effectively distinguish it from the company-level sibling.

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 like `get_workflow_instance_history_company` or `list_workflow_instances`. The description only mentions pagination parameters but does not explain context or exclusions.

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