tracearr_get_history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: cursor-based pagination, sort order (newest first), and the semantic definition of a play as one resume chain. It also explains that a show media_id matches all its episodes, which is important behavioral context not available in the schema.

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 entire description is just two sentences, yet it packs in the tool's purpose, output granularity, ordering, all filter semantics, and pagination usage. There is no filler or repetition; every phrase adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no schema descriptions), the description covers every parameter, explains pagination, and provides output semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. This is complete and self-sufficient.

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 has no descriptions for its 13 parameters, but the description lists and explains each filter, including domain-specific meanings like canonical id vs rating_key, and enumerates valid media_type values. It also clarifies date formats for since/until and the cursor parameter. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that this tool returns watch history with specific characteristics: cursor-paginated, newest first, one record per play with canonical media identity. It also defines a play as one resume chain, which uniquely identifies this tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_history or get_media_history that focus on scoped history.

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 clear context: this is a general history listing with a wide range of filters, including user_id, server_id, media_id, and external IDs. It explains how to paginate by passing meta.nextCursor back as cursor. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_user_history or get_media_history.

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