get_research_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and discloses that returned data includes run state and document counts, but it omits ordering, pagination behavior, and whether results are trimmed or complete. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The scope (all historical and ongoing) and the returned fields are stated economically.

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 need not explain return values; the mention of state and document counts is mildly redundant but harmless. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete, though it could say more about ordering or filtering if any applies.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not create any confusion about inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("historical and ongoing research runs") and even previews returned fields (state and document counts). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_research_state, which likely retrieves a single run.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_research_state or export_run, and no exclusions. The agent can infer this is for browsing history, but the description does not route between siblings.

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