get_model_print_history

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads print history, but does not mention required permissions, possible errors (e.g., invalid hash), or side effects. For a simple read operation, this is insufficient for full 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 concise, comprising three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and includes the parameter description in a natural place. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what it does and what the parameter means, but lacks details on error handling, return format, or expected behavior when no history exists. A slightly more complete description would improve this.

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 schema provides no description for the 'file_hash' parameter (coverage 0%). The description adds that it is a 'SHA-256 hash of the model file', which adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type and title, compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states it retrieves all print attempts for a model identified by file hash, specifying the returned data includes outcomes, settings, and quality grades. It is specific about the resource (model) and action (get history), but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'print_history'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., print_history, get_print_diagnostic). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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