segment_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that segment ids come from `report` and are ordered by the reference run, but says nothing about read-only status, permissions, filtering behavior, date-range handling, or other operational traits beyond that single sourcing detail.

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 short and front-loads the concept, but '§6.6' and 'one slope' are cryptic, and the two sentences are under-specified for a seven-parameter tool. It avoids verbosity but does not use its brief space to convey the most necessary semantics.

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 has seven parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, so the description must do substantial work. It only covers the conceptual purpose and how to obtain a segment id; it leaves most parameter behavior and usage context unexplained, despite an output schema being present.

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 0% with seven parameters. The description only indirectly clarifies `segment_id` by saying ids come from `report`; it adds no meaning for `last_n`, `cluster`, `start_date`, `end_date`, `run_type`, or `direction`.

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 phrase 'one slope, every traversal, over time — the trending primitive' suggests historical trend data for a segment, but it is metaphorical rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly say what is returned or distinguish this tool from sibling segment-related tools such as segment_effort_drift or list_segments.

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?

It gives one useful prerequisite: use `report` to find segment ids, and explains that ids are unrecognisable on their own. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus other segment or history tools, and no exclusions or conditions.

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