job_history

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema by stating the sort order (newest to oldest) and the maximum limit (100). Since no annotations are provided, this disclosure is valuable, though it omits details like authentication or rate limits.

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 (4 lines) with a clear structure: one line for purpose, then Args section, then return behavior. No superfluous content.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It describes ordering and the scope of results, though it lacks output schema details which could aid decision-making.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the limit (default 20, max 100) and status (possible values and default behavior). It adds clear semantics not present in 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 states it retrieves history of completed, failed, and cancelled print jobs, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'print_history' or 'failure_history', leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

The description explains how to use the parameters (limit, status) and the order of results, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer 'print_history' or 'job_status'.

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