get_assessment_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Return' and 'past' imply a non-mutating read operation, and the mention of raw answers is useful, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or disclose any other behavioral details such as ordering or scope constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both 'past assessment results' and 'including the raw answer for audit' earn their place, conveying the core purpose and a distinctive feature concisely.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry significant context. It does not explain parameter behavior, result structure, filtering semantics, or the meaning of limit/defaults, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly in varied situations.

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%, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions session_id, limit, or node_id. An agent cannot determine that session_id is the required scope, that limit controls the number of returned results, or that node_id filters by node.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('past assessment results'), and adds a distinctive detail ('including the raw answer for audit') that separates it from current-state or diagnostic getters. It is clear and unlikely to be confused with siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'for audit' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit routing based on need or scenario.

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