Recent operation history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine unannotated context: results are local to this profile, body-free (no message content), and limited to a seven-day window. It does not explain pagination behavior for the cursor or the ordering of results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that carries the profile scope, privacy constraint and time window with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the retention window plus body-free guarantee set expectations well for a simple read-only list. The only gap is pagination semantics for the undocumented cursor parameter.

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%: 'limit' and 'cursor' carry only titles and defaults, with no description. The description does not compensate at all, giving no page-size guidance, maximum, or explanation of how cursor round-tripping works.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (this profile's local, body-free operation history) with an explicit time scope of seven days. An agent can distinguish it from tb_operation_status, which addresses a single operation rather than the history list, though the description never names that 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of tb_operation_status or tb_operation_cancel as alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the discovery/recent-activity tool and the other two act on a single known operation ID.

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