tracearr_get_media_history

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the cursor-paginated mechanism and instructing to pass meta.nextCursor back as the cursor. This discloses pagination behavior and iterative usage, which is useful and not present in annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential parameter details. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and simple parameter set, the description is largely complete. It explains pagination and accepted ref formats, which are the key operational details. It does not repeat what the output schema likely covers, and no major gaps are evident.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'ref' parameter (canonical media uuid or provider ref) and the 'cursor' parameter (pass meta.nextCursor back). However, 'page_size' is not explicitly described, though its default value and pagination context imply it.

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 action: retrieving cursor-paginated watch history for a single media item. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_history (user-specific) and get_history (likely all history) by specifying 'single media item'.

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 for when to use the tool: for watch history of a single media item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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