nzbget_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get download history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the history is returned in (e.g., list, summary, detailed entries), or if there are any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'download history' entails (e.g., recent downloads, all-time history), how results are structured, or the parameter's role. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('hidden' of type boolean) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation for this parameter. The description 'Get download history' adds no meaning about what 'hidden' does—e.g., whether it filters to show hidden items, excludes hidden items, or something else. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this falls below the baseline.

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 'Get download history' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('download history'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'nzbget_log' or 'nzbget_list_groups', which might also retrieve historical data. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity about what makes this history retrieval unique.

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. With siblings like 'nzbget_log' (which might retrieve log history) and 'nzbget_list_groups' (which might list current/downloaded groups), there's no indication of whether this tool is for completed downloads, all historical data, or something else. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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