get_content_history

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

The description declares 'Read-only' which is a key behavioral trait, and mentions the response format (paginated JSON with hasMore flag). Since no annotations are provided, this self-disclosure is valuable, though it lacks details on potential side effects or prerequisites beyond projectId.

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 with three sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description covers the return format and pagination details. It mentions the need for projectId and the relationship to get_content_run_detail. While not exhaustive, it provides sufficient context for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema for each parameter; it only provides overall context. Thus, no extra credit beyond baseline.

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 the tool retrieves paginated history of Content Intelligence monitoring runs with completion timestamps. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_content_run_detail by specifying the retrieval of a list versus a single run.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('to compare content snapshots over time') and provides an alternative for retrieving specific run data using get_content_run_detail, fulfilling the need for usage guidance.

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