history

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only operation, and the description adds helpful context about ordering (newest first), returned fields, and downstream tool compatibility. It does not explain why idempotentHint is false or address pagination beyond what the schema already states.

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 definition is two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by a useful downstream routing note.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete enough to call it correctly. It covers what the tool returns and how results can be used downstream.

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 both parameters are well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that results are tied to a profile and ordered newest first, but it adds no additional parameter syntax or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource: saved check runs of a profile, including the data fields and ordering. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the live-check sibling by saying 'saved' check runs, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for selection.

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 provides useful follow-up guidance by noting that each run's path can be passed to get_finding or compare. However, it does not say when to use history instead of check, list_profiles, or other siblings, so usage selection is only implied.

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