fofa_schedule_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing that the result includes counts, snapshot deltas, and generated MD/HTML/JSON artifact paths, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how snapshots are compared.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-compressed rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't detail return values and reasonably summarizes what comes back. Still, for a tool with a required identifier and a paging limit, the absence of any pointer to schedule_id or limit leaves an agent dependent on the bare schema names.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters are documented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely gestures at 'snapshot changes', which hints at include_snapshots, while schedule_id (the required key that scopes everything) and limit (with its default of 30) go entirely unexplained.

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?

States a concrete verb (Read) and enumerates the resources it surfaces (execution history, counts, snapshot changes, report paths), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings like fofa_schedule_list or fofa_job_status, and 'counts' is ambiguous without knowing whether it refers to run counts, result counts, or something else.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all - no statement of prerequisites, no named alternatives, and no exclusion of the adjacent schedule/job tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this applies to a previously created schedule rather than an ad-hoc job.

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