state_history

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'the most recently logged events', without stating whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or whether days affects the result.

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 phrase is short and contains no fluff. However, it is a fragment-like noun phrase that under-specifies behavior, so the brevity is more a sign of missing information than effective concision.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify the time window, return type, and how it relates to sibling tools. The current text only restates the subject and is not enough for reliable autonomous invocation.

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?

The schema defines a 'days' parameter with default 7 and 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'days' at all, so an agent cannot infer its effect on the returned events.

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 names the content ('die zuletzt protokollierten Ereignisse') and implies a history/read view, but it lacks a verb that states what the tool does. It also does not distinguish state_history from siblings like state_read or state_event.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of state_read, state_event, or state_inject, and no indication of scope or exclusions. The word 'history' is the only cue, which is not enough.

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