emu_get_curri_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states intent, not details like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or what the returned records contain (e.g., timestamps, rule IDs). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this falls short.

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 precise sentence with no unnecessary filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the sentence earns its place.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but ambiguous on return behavior and scope. It omits details like default limit, ordering, and whether history is per-call. For an emulator utility, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters meaningfully. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema states, earning the baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a log of CURRI/ECC routing evaluation decisions and rule matches, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like emu_list_curri_events or emu_get_cdr_history, though the specialized scope helps.

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?

Description implies usage context by naming the specific log type, but provides no explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. It doesn't route the agent away from similar read tools like emu_list_curri_events, leaving selection partially to inference.

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