get_mission_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: only finished missions (not in-progress), sourced from the cloud, with a bounded window of 1 to 100. It omits ordering, freshness, and any auth/rate-limit context, so the disclosure is partial rather than thorough.

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 short sentence with the key scoping facts front-loaded and no waste. The trailing parenthetical is slightly cryptic, which is the only blemish on an otherwise efficient structure.

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 return values needn't be explained. However, for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should say more about ordering, pagination, and what 'recent' means before an agent can call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'limit' parameter. The '(1 to 100)' parenthetical appears to describe the limit range but is ambiguous — it could read as the number of missions returned — and the default of 20 is never mentioned.

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 specific verb+resource: retrieving recent finished missions from the iRobot cloud. That clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_status, get_schedule, and get_map. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_status or get_schedule, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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