rb209_grass_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only GET operation and does not describe response contents, error behavior, authorization needs, or side effects.

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 endpoint, but the clause after the dash is redundant and tautological. A clearer phrasing such as 'Retrieve a grass history by its ID' would be more effective.

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?

For a one-parameter GET endpoint this is minimally usable, but with no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed. The description does not explain what a grass history is, what the response contains, or how this endpoint relates to sibling tools like rb209_grass_histories.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, describing it as 'The Grass History ID.' The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly includes the HTTP verb and endpoint template, making it clear this tool retrieves a single grass history by ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rb209_grass_histories, and the phrase 'Grass history of grass history id provided' is somewhat circular.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that rb209_grass_histories lists all grass histories, nor does it describe any conditions or prerequisites for selecting this endpoint.

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