get_query_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what format the history is returned in, whether results are paginated, or if there are any rate limits. The return statement is minimal and lacks detail.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the return statement could be more informative. The formatting helps with readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It explains the parameter adequately and states the return type, but lacks details about the query history format, permissions needed, or how results are ordered. Given the simplicity of the tool, it's minimally adequate but leaves important questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only shows 'limit' with type integer and default), the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'limit' represents 'Number of recent queries to return' and specifying the default value. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description, though it doesn't elaborate on constraints like minimum/maximum values.

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's purpose: 'Get the history of executed queries.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('history of executed queries'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'show_running_queries' or 'execute_query' beyond the obvious historical vs current distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus 'show_running_queries' (for current queries) or 'execute_query' (for running new queries), nor any prerequisites or context for usage.

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