get_selection_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output order (latest first) and the structure of items (id, ts), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'), nor does it mention any side effects, error conditions, or limitations. Partial transparency.

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 extremely concise – a single phrase with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose (history) and includes the ordering and output shape. Every element is informative and nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema, so return format is covered externally. However, the description lacks explanation of the parameter, which is a gap. It also does not provide any usage context, such as when selection history would be relevant, or any prerequisites (e.g., a selection must exist). For a simple getter, it is minimally adequate, but incomplete for full autonomous use.

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% – the description does not mention the sole parameter 'last_n' at all. The schema provides type, default, min, and max, but no semantic meaning. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what 'last_n' represents (e.g., number of history items to return). The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of any description leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 '최근 클릭 히스토리 ([5-C]) — 최신순 [{id, ts}, ...]' clearly identifies the resource (recent click/selection history) and specifies the ordering and output structure. The tool name 'get_selection_history' reinforces the retrieval action. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on findings, nodes, or graph state.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which another tool (e.g., list_findings, get_graph_summary) would be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative and offers no selection logic.

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