get_operation_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns recent operation history, but does not mention whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, what format the history is in, or how often it updates. This lack of detail may lead to incorrect assumptions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the purpose and parameter details with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it omits details about what constitutes 'operation history', whether it is persistent, and how results are structured, which may be important for debugging tasks.

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 description fully explains the only parameter 'count' as 'Number of recent operations to show (default 10)', which adds meaning beyond the schema's default value and type. Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the tool description compensates 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 clearly states the tool retrieves recent operation history for debugging. The verb 'get' and resource 'operation history' are specific, and the purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object_info or get_scene_info, which have different focus.

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 phrase 'for debugging' provides some usage context, but there are no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, which limits guidance for the agent.

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