get_history

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'View', but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., marking notifications read), ordering, limits, or authentication needs, leaving key behaviors unstated.

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 short sentence with no filler. The verb-object structure is immediately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional documented parameters, so the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify return format or what 'recent' means, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so 'tags' and 'limit' are already documented structurally. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline score for high coverage.

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 clear read operation ('View') with a specific resource ('your recent notification history'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_notification (write) and list_devices (hardware), leaving no ambiguity about what it retrieves.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The only guidance is the description's implied use case: retrieving recent notification history, which is a reasonable inference but not spelled out compared with sibling tools.

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